Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Royal Assent

Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Gas (Exempt Supplies) Act 1993
2. British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals) Act 1993.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Wages Councils

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what further representations she has received about her proposals to abolish wages councils; and if she will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): My right hon. Friend has continued to receive representations for and against the proposals.

Mr. Canavan: Why do the Government persist in the absurd claim that the abolition of wages councils will create jobs? That claim is clearly refuted by the research done by the Department of Trade and Industry, the Institute of Personnel Management, the London school of economics and the Low Pay Unit.
Instead of abolishing wages councils, will the Minister take steps to give more protection to the 2.5 million people, mostly women, who are covered or supposed to be covered by wages council agreements? If the Government are serious about law and order, will they employ more inspectors to stop unscrupulous employers breaking the law by employing people at less than wages council agreements?

Mr. Forsyth: When the hon. Gentleman represented part of my constituency he supported a Labour Government in abolishing 11 wages councils, taking half a million people out of the so-called wages councils. I am sure that he did so because he recognised the arguments for employment. It is the height of hypocrisy for him to come to the House and complain about this Government following the very measures which they—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman used a word which is unparliamentary.

Mr. Forsyth: I am happy to withdraw the accusation of hypocrisy. I note that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) acepts that the Labour Government abolished 11 wages councils, just as this Conservative Government will do.
As to the hon. Gentleman's point about the effect on employment, only a socialist would believe that one would get more jobs by increasing the price of labour.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend's history is disputable. One of the wages councils which was abolished was in the road transport industry, where collective negotiation was putting up pay.
If my hon. Friend believes that putting pay up is the best action to take, is not the fastest way to do it to have higher rates for the minimum wage for wages councils? Does he prefer to consider the question whether abolition of the wages councils is a sensible idea in a year in which we are likely to abolish the out-of-date restrictions on Sunday trading, which will affect retail workers?

Mr. Forsyth: I favour deregulation of the labour market in relation to Sunday trading because I believe that it will create more jobs. I assume from my hon. Friend's question that he has the same view. I am therefore a little puzzled as to why he does not see a deregulatory measure —the abolition of wages councils—as being in the interests of the labour market as a whole. It was certainly a view which he accepted in answers that he gave when he was a Minister. Then he accepted the principle that there was a relationship between the creation of jobs and the fixing of wage levels by statutory bodies such as wages councils.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State received a letter in November from Cyril Stein, the boss of Ladbrokes, who pays himself £584,000 a year? In the letter Mr. Stein welcomed the abolition of wages councils and said that the wages council award which gave his employees £2.92 an hour was causing difficulties for his company.

Mr. Forsyth: The wage of the chairman of Ladbrokes is a matter for the board of directors and the shareholders. [Interruption.] Hon. Members who are cheering might like to know that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment is one of those directors.

48-hour Week

Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will refer to the European Court the decision of the Council of Ministers to consider the 48-hour week directive on the basis of the Single European Act; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: A challenge cannot be made unless the directive is adopted. We are continuing to argue strongly against its adoption. We have already made it clear that we will challenge the legal base of the directive should it be adopted in its present form.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister agree that as the Government failed to challenge the directive on the first reading, which they could have done by not allowing a unanimous decision, they have shown that most of the phoney row between the two Front-Bench teams about the social chapter is basically artificial? Will he at least give me the simple assurance that there is no way in which the


Government will allow the vital social chapter amendment to be considered halfway through the night by a bunch of sleepy-heads when the rest of the world is asleep?

Mr. Forsyth: The timing of consideration of business in the House is not a matter for me, I am pleased to say. My hon. Friend is wrong to imply that it would have been possible for the Government to challenge the legal base of the working time directive before it was agreed. A challenge can be made only after a directive is agreed and my right hon. Friend has had considerable success in ensuring that that has not happened. The Government remain opposed to the working time directive and we shall continue to oppose it. I give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that if the directive is agreed in its present form, we shall challenge its legal base.

Mr. Grocott: Is not it a fact that after 14 years of having a Conservative Government in power, workers in Britain work for longer hours each week and have lower annual leave entitlements and fewer statutory bank holidays than almost any of our European competitors? Does not that represent a further savage indictment of the Government's economic incompetence?

Mr. Forsyth: What is a fact is that we have a far higher proportion of our population in work than almost any other European country. If we took the hon. Gentleman's advice employment opportunities in Britain would be reduced at a time of high unemployment. The Government, who are committed to reducing unemployment, would not be so foolish as to put socialism before the jobs of our fellow citizens.

Mr. Sykes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the social chapter and the 48-hour week would have a devastating impact on jobs and prospects at a time when Britain is about to emerge from the recession?

Mr. Forsyth: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I find it amazing that anyone could believe that it is a proper role for the Government to say how long people should work in the workplace. That is for agreement between employees and employers. Only very foolish politicians on the Opposition Benches would go along with the proposition that someone should be prevented from working overtime by decisions taken in the House, the European Commission or the Council of Ministers.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest official figures for the numbers unemployed and the percentage of unemployed; and what the corresponding figures were for May 1979.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): On a seasonally adjusted basis, claimant unemployment in the United Kingdom stood at 2,908,900 or 10.3 per cent. of the work force, in November 1992; compared with 1,087,000, or 4.1 per cent. of the work force, in May 1979.

Mr. Winnick: The increase since 1979 should shame every member of the Cabinet, not least the Secretary of State herself. Is not it clear that unemployment will substantially increase even further shortly—to well over the 3 million mark—even on the official figures? Do not the Government recognise that they are playing with fire by

allowing such high unemployment, with all the resulting misery, poverty and devastation which it causes for our fellow citizens? If the Secretary of State had any pride, she would resign.

Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that I share his concern about unemployed people. But I am not inclined to take any lessons from him or his hon. Friends on how to deal with unemployment, given the extraordinary proposals emanating from the Labour Front Bench in the so-called shadow budget for jobs. He and his colleagues should recall that the last shadow budget cost Labour the election. This one shows that they have learnt no lessons in economics. Their policy would damage investment and training and cut jobs, yet they call it a budget for jobs. It is ridiculous.

Sir Michael Neubert: Does my right hon. Friend, like me, find the suggestion that high unemployment is unique to this country a touch unconvincing? Can she say how many people are out of work in Europe today and how that compares with 14 years ago?

Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is right—we share the difficult problems of unemployment and the recession that causes it with other member states in Europe and countries further afield in the industrialised world. Only the policies of this Government can possibly cope with unemployment. The ridiculous shadow budget for jobs shows the Opposition's cynisism, when they deliberately seek to tax out of existence industries that provide 350,000 jobs.

Ms. Quin: The House would welcome some information from the Secretary of State about how she proposes to prevent unemployment from rising to more than 3 million. Would she like to comment on the figures that she supplied to me yesterday in a written reply showing the extent of adult male unemployment, which has rocketed not only in the north, where it is 16.4 per cent., but in the south-east, where it is 13.2 per cent? Do not those figures show the savage decline in our manufacturing? What will the Government do to ensure that employment in manufacturing increases?

Mrs. Shephard: The first thing that we would not do would be to tax manufacturing out of existence, which is the intention of the Labour party. We need policies of low inflation, low interest rates, a competitive exchange rate, low wage claims and the largest-ever range of help and opportunities for unemployed people, which we have in place.

Mr. Evennett: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that measures in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's autumn statement will create new jobs in this country and that, with the low inflation announced last week, there is a tremendous opportunity for new job creation in the economy during the next few months?

Mrs. Shephard: That is precisely why the autumn statement was so widely welcomed by business interests. The increase in capital allowances, extra help to boost exports, the cut in car tax and help for the construction industry were all welcomed by business, which creates jobs. Those measures will help to combat the difficult problem that all of us face.

Employment Training

Mr. Enright: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of those leaving employment training in Yorkshire and Humberside achieved vocational qualifications in the last six months for which figures are available.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): In the six months to March 1992, 30 per cent. of all people leaving employment training in Yorkshire and Humberside gained a qualification or a credit towards one. That is significantly higher than during the same period a year ago.

Mr. Enright: Is the Minister aware that the President of the Board of Trade is hell-bent on throwing miners on the scrap heap? Does he consider that that answer will be of any assistance to them? Do not many people who go on such courses find them an insult to their intelligence and therefore leave early and do not get work at the end of the course? Indeed, many people have to go back for two or even three courses. Will he examine the quality of training, which is very low?

Mr. McLoughlin: As the hon. Gentleman will know, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will publish a White Paper on the energy question. On quality, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are concerned about getting quality from our employment training scheme, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced changes as a result of the very good settlement that she achieved in the autumn statement. It would be refreshing to hear the Labour party and Opposition Members talking about supporting training schemes, instead of opposing every scheme that the Government have introduced.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend accept that it would be wholly unacceptable to throw people out of work in the nuclear industry in Lancashire and Cumbria simply to provide jobs in Yorkshire?

Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend will draw equal comfort from the question that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) asked me at the previous employment questions. She rightly shows that that is one of the questions that my right hon. Friend must take into account when drawing up the White Paper.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that, when the coal board was flourishing, the Yorkshire and Humberside coalfields—indeed, every coalfield in Britain—used to run a training scheme? They trained miners not only to dig coal, but to become electricians, fitters and carpenters: they trained them to do almost every job that had to be done down the pit. Literally scores of industries used those workers when they left the mines. Now there is no worthwhile training scheme; all that the Government do is run slave labour schemes, taking 500,000 young men and women off the unemployment register at the same time.

Mr. McLoughlin: I do remember that. I also remember that most parents would prefer anything to sending their children down the coal mines.

Industrial Action

Mr. Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days were lost to industrial action in the last 12-month period for which figures are available.

Mr. McLoughlin: There were 504,000 working days lost to strikes in the 12 months to October 1992. That is the lowest 12-month total ever recorded.

Mr. Duncan: Given that foreign-owned firms have a high regard for our industrial relations record and given that pressure on employment prospects will continue until well after the end of the recession, does my hon. Friend agree that a healthy no-strike record is of the utmost importance to attracting inward investment and is equally important to reducing unemployment in general?

Mr. McLoughlin: I entirely agree. Because of our current low strike record—which is due to the industrial relations changes introduced by the Government—the United Kingdom is now receiving more inward investment than any other European country.

Mr. Burden: Will the Minister reflect on evidence provided by the Employment Gazette, which pointed out that the number of strikes was falling across Europe, even in countries with far more extensive rights to strike than Britain? Will he also reflect on the evidence given to him by, for instance, the chambers of commerce and the Institute of Personnel Management, which have drawn attention to the foolhardiness of the Government's further trade union reforms? Does he accept that those reforms have much more to do with having another bash at the unions and appeasing the Conservative right wing than with promoting industrial relations?

Mr. McLoughlin: The one thing that Conservative Members will not take is being lectured by the Opposition about industrial relations. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), in the past 12 months 504,000 working days were lost through industrial disputes. In January 1979, when another party was in government, 3 million days were lost—3 million days in that month alone. We will take no lectures from the Labour party about how to improve industrial relations and reduce strike action.

Union Members

Mr. Trend: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment she has made of the effect of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill on the rights of individual union members.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The Bill gives union members important new rights, including greater freedom to decide which union they join and the right to a full postal ballot before a strike. It also introduces important new rights for individual employees.

Mr. Trend: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the legislation is another positive step towards establishing individual rights for trade union members and that it is in the best traditions of the Conservative party since 1979? Will he also confirm that every extension of trade union democracy has been opposed by the TUC and the Labour party?

Mr. Forsyth: I agree, with one qualification: Labour Members have opposed such legislation and then—before a general election—have turned round and said that they have experienced a sudden conversion on the road to Damascus. Where we have progressed forward step by step, the Opposition have progressed backwards step by step. Our action has benefited the economy as a whole and is undoubtedly the reason for the current high levels of inward investment in Britain.

Mr. Eastham: Why do not the Government act more evenhandedly when it comes to the rights of trade unionists? Is not it a fact that some employers will not recognise trade unions in their companies? What protection will the Government give to workers?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is confused. He is confusing the interests of workers with those of trade unions—and that is why he and his hon. Friends sit on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Nicholls: Will my hon. Friend remind the House that the conversion to which he referred is not total? Does he recall that for the first time in its history there is now a proposition from the Labour party that it should be illegal to sack strikers? Is not it remarkable that Opposition Members take that position, which goes further than any Labour Government have in history?

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend has great experience in these matters and I agree with him. The Labour party has always been the striker's friend and the Conservative party has always been the trade union member's friend. The Conservative party has given the trade unions back to their members and has enhanced the rights of those members in the teeth of opposition from the Labour party.

Part-time Workers

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures she intends to take to provide employment protection for part-time workers employed by their existing employer for less than five years.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill gives part-time workers new rights, including maternity leave and protection against exclusion or expulsion from a trade union. It will also give employees the right to receive a written statement of terms and conditions of employment provided that they work eight or more hours a week.

Mr. Mackinlay: Does the Minister consider it fair and consistent with the rules of natural justice that part-time workers—millions of them women—should have no protection from unfair or arbitrary dismissal? Is not it a fact that many part-time workers are dismissed or have their contracts arbitrarily altered as though they were chattels rather than people?

Mr. Forsyth: What an astonishing question. The hon. Gentleman is criticising the provisions in respect of the rights of part-time workers which were introduced by the last Labour Government in 1975.

Mrs. Browning: Does my hon. Friend agree that the more strictly regulated economies such as France or Germany do not produce the part-time work opportunities that we have in Britain?

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Labour Members have not yet discovered that the more they add to the cost of employing people and the greater the burdens they put on employers in taking on labour, the more people will become unemployed and the fewer job opportunities there will be in the economy. We have the highest level of employment among part-time women workers, as well as among women in the economy as a whole, as a result of having a free labour market. If the Opposition had their way, there would be fewer opportunities for people to get jobs and I am sure that that is not what they want.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister confirm that it has been the case since records were kept that more British people, including women, are in employment than in any country in Europe except Denmark? At the same time, thousands of loyal, long-term staff, including those at Burtons and Forte, have been thrown out of full-time jobs which many of them have had for years and forced to go part time? Is not it utterly unfair that they should then be deprived of employment rights and entitlement to benefit just to suit the need and the greed of their employers?

Mr. Forsyth: Their employment rights reflect the position that was thought appropriate by the last Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that he cannot continue adding to the burden on employers and expect employment opportunities to be created in the economy. The reason why we have far more people in work—that has been the pattern for some time—is that, unlike many of our European partners, we have had a longer period of Governments committed to free enterprise and policies that create wealth and employment.

Mrs. Chaplin: Does my hon. Friend agree that many women wish to work part time because it fits in with their family commitments? Will he ensure that nothing is done to endanger part-time jobs in Britain?

Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend. She is absolutely right that many women work part time because they wish to do so. Only the Opposition, with their interest in the trade union movement, would wish to deny millions of people that opportunity.

Child Care

Mr. Chisholm: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has for the provision of after-school child care.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The Government are providing £45 million through training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies over the next three financial years to help employers, schools, parents, local authorities, voluntary organisations and partnerships of all these to create some 50,000 additional out-of-school places for children.

Mr. Chisholm: Given that the United Kingdom is bottom of the European child care league, any initiative is welcome, but is the £15 million a year ring-fenced, and is this additional money, or does it come from an already inadequate Department of Employment budget? What proportion will go to Scotland, and why is the money available only for start-up costs when continuing funding is necessary for low-income parents?

Mrs. Shephard: I refute the hon. Gentleman's basic premise. He should know that more than 90 per cent. of all three and four-year-olds already receive some kind of day care, and that the statutory school starting age is lower here than in the countries of many of our European counterparts.
This is new money. Scotland will receive 9 per cent. of it, based on the children of primary school age formula. The hon. Gentleman should be a little more welcoming, given the welcome that the project has had from kids club networks, play groups, the Working Mothers Association, the Day Care Trust and so on.

Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the recent circular from her colleague in the Department of Health making it easier for small providers of child care to avoid some of the bureaucratic burdens piled on them by people such as health and safety inspectors? Will she promise to work closely not only with the Department of Health but with the deregulation unit in the Department of Trade and Industry to ensure that a proper path is trodden between protection of children and the capacity of respectable individuals and voluntary organisations to provide this necessary form of care?

Mrs. Shephard: Given the entirely welcome increase in the numbers of child minders and registered day nurseries, I agree with my hon. Friend. The extra guidance from the Department of Health to what are perhaps over-zealous local authorities which might have discouraged the setting up of yet more facilities for young children is entirely to be welcomed.

Training Levy

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has for a compulsory training levy.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I have no such plans.

Mr. Mullin: May I put it to the Secretary of State that no amount of exhortation to the myopic and greedy people in charge of so much of British industry will persuade them to invest in long-term training? Our only hope of finding training for future generations of a sort that will enable us to hold our heads high in Europe will be to compel these employers to pay a training levy. Failing that, we are doomed.

Mrs. Shephard: I find the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm—and that of his party—for yet more burdens on employers disappointing but predictable. Opposition Members obviously have not noticed, because they are stuck in the past, that policies of compulsion were tried in the 1960s and 1970s, and they failed. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues try listening to employers instead of vilifying them as they tend to do. The commitment of employers to training remains undiminished by the difficulties of recession. This year they committed a record £20 billion to training—an excellent record representing a great commitment.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Is it not quite extraordinary at a time of cyclically high unemployment which is disturbing us all— [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity.

Mr. Davies: I am glad to see that I still have my fan club among the Opposition. Is it not extraordinary that some people can think of nothing better than dreaming up new ideas to add to the costs of taking on more employees, thereby destroying the prospects for new jobs?

Mrs. Shephard: It is enough to name a burden for business to be certain that Opposition Members will support it in principle. What are more damaging for business—after all, it creates jobs—are a minimum wage, a payroll tax, a training levy, and support for a social action programme. Labour supports all those; all of them threaten jobs, as my hon. Friend is right to point out.

Training and Enterprise Councils

Mr. Hutton: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement about the level of funding for training and enterprise councils in 1993–94.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: In 1993–94 we will make £2.2 billion available for TEC-delivered programmes.

Mr. Hutton: Is the Minister aware that many training and enterprise councils, including Cumbria's, are bracing themselves for substantial cuts in the volume of adult training resources being made available by the Government? Is she further aware that unemployment in south and west Cumbria is increasing dramatically and that unemployment has doubled in my constituency in the last two years? Will she give an assurance to my constituents that the Cumbria training and enterprise council will continue to have sufficient resources to provide its current quality training profile and so offer my constituents living under the shattering blow of unemployment the prospect of secure alternative jobs in new industries in the future?

Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman should know that the sum of £2.2 billion is broadly the same as last year, despite the fact that TECs have fewer young people with whom to deal on youth training because of the longer staying on at school rate. The recent deal in the autumn statement was greatly welcomed by the TECs. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that Cumbria TEC is an active member of the action team set up by the Government in response to redundances at Sellafield and VSEL. Any question of additional resources for the TEC, should there be further problems in Cumbria, would have to be considered in the light of what could be managed at the time.

Mr. Dickens: Why, during Question Time, are we always on the defensive? Why do we not tell people that Britain is the only country in Europe that guarantees a training place to every 16 and 17-year-old who is without a job or is not in further education? The reason is simply that we recognise that, with mechanisation and automation, skills must be changed and new skills learned. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is the party—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I look sympathetically on the hon. Member, but I do not allow him to make speeches at Question Time.

Mrs. Shephard: It is difficult to imagine anybody less defensive than my hon. Friend. He is right to draw the attention of the House to the fact that during the last 12


months, about 225,000 young people entered youth training. Of those, about 10 per cent. have benefited from credit schemes and three quarters of them are satisfied with the outcome of YT. It is indeed a good record, and the Government are pledged to maintain it.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the Secretary of State explain to her hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) that the Conservatives are always on the defensive because they have an appalling record, in particular in the funding of TECs, where the budget has been cut in real terms? Is the right hon. Lady aware that many, including a large number of Conservative Members, are concerned about special needs training? She will be aware of the recent report from the Spastics Society showing that people with special needs are not being given the training they require. She will also be aware that Members in all parts of the House have written to her on that subject. Will she meet a delegation of hon. Members on an all-party basis so that the issue may be thrashed out?

Mrs. Shephard: I am always happy to meet delegations of hon. Members, in particular to discuss important matters such as the way in which TECs are equipped to deal with special needs. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to talk about records, perhaps I should ask if it is not a matter of concern to him that under the last Labour Government only 7,000 youngsters were on Government training programmes.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Despite the high levels of unemployment in the south-east, may I ask my right hon. Friend to pay tribute to the TECs working in and around the county of Surrey for the work they are doing, particularly with young people? At a time when industry is having difficulties, we should commend companies that have fully participated in those training schemes.

Mrs. Shephard: I agree that in recession some TECs have found it difficult to provide industrial places for people on youth training. TECs have employed a variety of imaginative and successful initiatives such as marketing campaigns, new workshops and initial training provision of exactly the kind described by my hon. Friend in Surrey.

Employment Statistics

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what changes she plans to improve the accuracy of employment statistics.

Mr. McLoughlin: The Department has already taken steps to improve the reliability of employment statistics and additional work, including the first full census of employers since 1981, is in hand.

Mr. Flynn: Is the Minister aware that a woman who works as a cleaner in the House in the early hours of the morning, who has a similar job in a London hospital in the afternoon, and who works as a barmaid at the weekend is treated by the Government as three people? Why do the Government persist in including 750,000 people who have double jobs twice and sometimes three times in the unemployment statistics? Why do they include 1 million non-existent self-employed people in the statistics and insist on counting at least 2 million part timers as though

they were full timers? They should stop blaming the last Labour Government for all their problems, stop creating fiction and start creating jobs.

Mr. McLoughlin: The employees in employment series is the count of the number of jobs in the economy and follows the practice of the previous Administration. [Interruption.] We have made no secret of that. I am not sure from the hon. Gentleman's question whether he wants us to count the three Labour Members who are also Members of the European Parliament as doing one or two jobs.

Mr. Alexander: Is it not the case that every time the Government arrange to improve the accuracy of the statistics Labour accuses us of distorting them?

Mr. McLoughlin: That is correct. My hon. Friend points to the picture that the Opposition always paint. As I have said, the method used to count those who are in employment is no different from that used by the previous Administration.

Labour Statistics

Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for the number of people unemployed in the Liverpool travel-to-work area.

Mr. McLoughlin: In November 1992 unadjusted claimant unemployment in the Liverpool travel-to-work area stood at 72,704.

Mrs. Kennedy: In view of those appalling figures what advice would the Minister give to the 27-year-old man who came to see me recently in Liverpool and who in 1983 at the age of 17 took Lord Tebbit's advice and went looking for work? He travelled throughout the south of England from job to job without finding anywhere permanent to settle. He returned to Liverpool in 1991 when the work dried up and has been unemployed for two years. What is the appropriate advice for him?

Mr. McLoughlin: The appropriate advice to give that gentleman is to contact the Employment Service which has been very effective in placing a number of people in work. I am rather surprised that the hon. Lady did not quote the figures showing that between 1986 and November 1992 unemployment in her constituency fell by 2,232, which is 26 per cent. lower than in 1986.

Mr. John Marshall: Has my hon. Friend estimated the impact on unemployment in Liverpool of the introduction of a national minimum wage? Would not that destroy jobs whereas the abolition of wages councils will create jobs?

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who rightly points out that Labour has not changed its mind about a national minimum wage, although some Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), have accepted that it would reduce people's employment prospects. That is a strange way to try to increase employment.

Mr. Loyden: When will the Minister and his Secretary of State stop fudging about unemployment and stop giving ridiculous and silly answers to questions on a matter that affects millions of families? I note, and it would be significant for others to note, that the Secretary of State


constantly refers to the burden on employers. At no time did she mention the burden on the unemployed and their families. When will the Government face their responsibility for the present economic climate that brought about such unemployment?

Mr. McLoughlin: We take the plight of those people who are unemployed very seriously. That is why we shall not take easy options to try to bring about an unrealistic end to high levels of unemployment. I would say to the hon. Gentleman that in his constituency, unemployment is 33 per cent. lower than it was in 1986. I should have thought that he might welcome that.

Manufacturing Industry

Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employees are employed in manufacturing industry; and what the figure was a year ago.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The number of employees in employment in manufacturing industries in the United Kingdom was 4,485,000 in September 1992 compared to 4,746,000 in September 1991.

Mr. Hain: Is the Minister aware that of the 21 leading industrialised nations, this country is second from bottom in the amount of manufacturing growth since 1979, and that there is a burning anger among local manufacturers and their workers about the fact that this Government are clueless about the need for policies to revive our manufacturing sector.

Mr. Forsyth: Only today the European Community has estimated that Britain is likely to have a higher growth this year than our European partners and the hon. Member's concern about manufacturing unemployment and employment would be more convincing if he and his party did not support all the measures in the social chapter which would reduce our competitiveness and make us less likely to have inward investment which has provided so many jobs in his constituency, in Wales, in Scotland and in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Sir John Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Sir John Hannam: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the social chapter, which he skilfully negotiated out of the Maastricht treaty, would destroy investment, business confidence and jobs in this country? Is it not therefore the greatest hypocrisy to support such a damaging measure while at the same time claiming to care for the unemployed?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. When I negotiated Britain's exemption from the social chapter I seem to recall that I was accused of making Britain a paradise for foreign investment. I hope

very much that that proves to be true. The reality is that the Opposition disagree about that. The truth is that they are hostile to industry and do not understand business. Until they drop their commitment to the social chapter they cannot also claim to be seeking lasting jobs.

Mr. John Smith: On that very subject, is the Prime Minister aware that of all the Prime Ministers we have had since the war, he has the worst record for growth, the worst record for investment and the worst record for jobs? Is he not ashamed of such a miserable record?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a fine one to talk about records. His record as shadow Chancellor lost Labour a record fourth election precisely because he proposed record tax increases.

Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister not note that he failed completely to deny that he had the worst growth record, the worst investment and the worst employment record? Since there is anger throughout the country [Interruption]—I hope that Conservative Members will not treat unemployment flippantly. Since there is growing anger throughout the whole country at rising unemployment why does the Prime Minister not agree to put a windfall profits tax on the excess profits of monopoly privatised companies and use the money to create jobs?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman also forgot to mention another record of mine; the record for bringing down inflation so that we can recreate lasting jobs. The fact is that what we just heard is the old Labour party speaking; the party of the 1960s and 1970s. They hate profits. They would rather have nationalised industries making losses than privatised industries making profits. They cannot stand firms being successful and they do not understand that firms need profits to provide investment, to provide growth, and to provide jobs. That is why their record in government has always been one of complete and record failure.

Mr. Smith: Can the Prime Minister explain to the House and to the country why it was all right for a Conservative Government to introduce an excess profits tax on banks in the first recession but now to oppose an excess profits tax on the privatised utilities? Does not the Prime Minister appreciate that every pound of these excess profits and of managers' fat salaries has come from the British people? Is not it time that they got some of it back to create jobs for them and their families?

The Prime Minister: I am quite happy to educate the right hon. and learned Gentleman about that, since he clearly does not understand. In the early 1980s interest rates were raised sharply to control inflation. At that time, the banks did not pay interest on current accounts. As a result of that, they genuinely made windfall profits. That was why the Government taxed them. The utility tax that the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. I cannot hear the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: Labour Members do not like understanding reality; they do not like it at all. The fact of the matter is that the utilities are already regulated. If they make excessive profits, the regulator can change their pricing formula, and he has already changed BT's from


RPI minus three to RPI minus 6.25—real price cuts for consumers, which we never saw under a nationalised industry. That is why the appropriate policy is tough regulation, not 1960s artificial control.

Mr. Sims: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister shares the widespread concern about the collapse of criminal proceedings against a couple whose daughter died a violent death because they invoked their right to say nothing. Is he aware that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has details of 10 similar cases? Whatever the arguments may be for or against the right of silence in cases generally, is not there a strong argument in favour of reviewing its application in cases where children have been cruelly treated or even killed?

The Prime Minister: I cannot, of course, discuss the particular case raised by my hon. Friend, but I understand the concerns that he expresses. Decisions on whether to prosecute are entirely for the Crown prosecution service. My hon. Friend may know that the right to silence is one of the matters being considered by the Royal Commission on criminal justice. I would not wish to anticipate its report.

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Prime Minister give the reason for the rising and record levels of unemployment in Essex—a county which includes my constituency of Thurrock and, of course, the betrayed people of Basildon?

The Prime Minister: I will tell the hon. Gentleman one thing that is very clear about unemployment: it will fall as a result of this Government's policies. That is what he had better understand.

Mr. Couchman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is ironic indeed that in the very week when the Leader of the Opposition produces a phoney budget for jobs the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) is seeking to destroy 140,000 Sunday jobs, which are vital to many families in this country?

The Prime Minister: On this and other issues the reality is that Labour policy is inconsistent. It changes not only from election to election but from week to week. Not long ago, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) proposed the biggest tax increases in peace time. Nine months later, he said categorically that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor should not increase taxes in the Budget, but 10 days later he calls for a windfall tax.

Mr. Rooker: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Rooker: Can I ask the Prime Minister if, until unemployment starts to fall, he will make it part of his political strategy to assist the unemployed by easing the rules on socal security benefits so that those unemployed people who have household responsibilities and who are in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s can genuinely take

advantage of opportunities to improve their education and training rather than, as at present, be penalised if they study too much or lose their homes if they have household responsibilities? For a very small investment in people, we could have a huge return for the country.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman makes a point which is well worth considering, and in the past we have looked at some matters related to it. This is the sort of matter which we are prepared to examine. The hon. Gentleman will know from his own experience in social security that there is significant help, for example, with mortgages, and he will also know the additional help that is being given to people towards training and studying.

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning trendy, mixed ability teaching—[Interruption.] Opposition Members are products of it—which has so damaged the education of millions of children since the 1960s? [Interruption.] I hope they care. Are not moves to return the teaching of children to traditional methods just plain common sense? Is it not now also time to end trendy teacher-training methods?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is a distinguished former head teacher so I particularly welcome his remarks. I agree that the way forward is to return to the basics of education, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education said yesterday that we had plans to strengthen primary education. I am sure that we are right to look carefully also at getting the teaching methods right. Common-sense, practical teaching which puts good teachers in front of good children is undoubtedly the right way to improve our education system.

Mr. Ray Powell: Is it not fair that when an hon. Member is named or mentioned in a Prime Minister's question the Member involved should have the right to reply? I respect and thank you, Madam Speaker, for calling me. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Give the hon. Gentleman a chance to put his question.

Mr. Powell: Obviously, the Prime Minister, as with a lot of the policies that he has presented to the House, is misguided and is misrepresenting facts. The question that he was asked regarding a Bill that I will present on Friday—

Madam Speaker: Order. I must now call the hon. Gentleman to order. I am looking for a very direct question to the Prime Minister, right away.

Mr. Powell: The Bill is an all-party Bill supported by five of the Prime Minister's colleagues. It is not a Labour party Bill and therefore the Prime Minister should correct the answer that he gave just now.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, be a firm advocate of his own Bill in a few days' time. I can tell him that in due course my right hon. and


learned Friend the Home Secretary will bring proposals to the House and will give it a series of alternatives upon which to make up its mind on this thorny issue.

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Field: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the publication of the highway code today? Will he ensure that copies are made available to Opposition Members, some of whom seem to be stuck on a roundabout, uncertain as to which exit to take, while others seem intent on overtaking their leaders on the inside, while we on the Government side look forward to a major road ahead?

The Prime Minister: I should like, if I may, to try to respond to that testing question. I very much welcome the publication of the new highway code. I am bound to say that it does seem to me extremely important that the Leader of the Opposition perhaps should study it. He might learn, after his proposals this morning, that he should not signal right when he is turning left.

Sir David Steel: Will the Prime Minister clarify the support that the Government give to enforcement action against Saddam Hussein? Is it correct that that support will be given only as long as the action is in accordance with international law in agreement with our coalition partners and involves the minimum necessary use of force?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I can confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that that has been the position thus far, and it is our position, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Defence Secretary set out the other day.

Parliamentary Question (Madam Speaker's Ruling)

Madam Speaker: I have to give a ruling to the House in response to a point of order from the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) last Wednesday. I undertook to examine the circumstances in which a question was tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
I have established that a parliamentary clerk in the Scottish Office did in fact, as the hon. Member for Dumbarton suggested, send a question to the Table Office, and that the question was written on a question form pre-signed by the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside. Since the form was signed by an hon. Member, the Table Office behaved perfectly properly in accepting it. I hope, however, that any practice that may have grown up of pre-signing forms will now cease.
I must make it absolutely clear that the tabling of a question is a formal parliamentary proceeding which must be undertaken only with the specific approval of an hon. Member, if not by himself or herself personally. What happened was an abuse—[Interruption.] Order. I have not finished. I have received apologies from the Secretary of State and from the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside, together with the undertakings that such an occurrence will not be repeated.
In raising this point of order with me, the hon. Member for Dumbarton said that he was referring the matter to the Procedure Committee. It will be for that Committee to decide whether it wishes to consider any wider implications that this incident may have for the rules of tabling questions. For my part, I accept the apologies and the undertakings that have been given, but I make it absolutely clear to the entire House that there must be no recurrence whatsoever of this practice.

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, I should like to make a short business statement.
The subject for debate on Thursday 21 January will now be "events in the Gulf and the Royal Air Force", on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. I believe that that will be for the general convenience of the House. The House will also wish to know that, as I said last Thursday, the debate will be opened by my right and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and will now be wound up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I thank the Leader of the House for that announcement. He will know that we have been pressing for a meeting of the Security Council and for an opportunity for the House to discuss these matters. I am sure that the Leader of the House will understand, especially in the light of what was said during last week's business questions, that inevitably it is likely that the debate will concentrate on the position in the Gulf. I hope that he will bear it in mind that there may be a further request for a service debate on issues involving the provision of service by the Royal Air Force at a later date.

Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Lady's point. As I understand it, and subject always to the Chair, it will be in order for hon. Members to raise other points, but I have no doubt that the House will expect—as I do—that the main focus of the debate will be the situation in the Gulf.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the treasured single-day debate on the Royal Air Force will be largely about the Royal Air Force, because it is active in the Gulf?

Mr. Newton: That is a helpful point, and I think that it will command some assent from the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett).

Mr. Menzies Campbell: In view of the answers we have been given, would it not now be intelligent to consider whether the debate on Thursday should concentrate exclusively on events in the Gulf, so that as many hon. Members as possible with an interest in that topic might have an opportunity to contribute, and whether, therefore, a separate and distinct day should be assigned for a debate on the Royal Air Force?

Mr. Newton: We can all agree that it is highly likely that the main focus of the debate will be the Gulf. However, as it is principally the RAF that has been involved in the Gulf, I am not sure that it would be right to rule out reference to other matters affecting the RAF.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As the debate on Thursday will deal with issues affecting the lives of British soldiers and of people throughout the middle east, and will therefore be desperately important and will require the total attention of hon. Members, can the Leader of the House give us an assurance that the Government will not seek to make Members tired and harassed by expecting them to debate vital issues, like the social chapter, in the early hours of the morning—

Madam Speaker: Order. I think that I can help the House. This is a very narrow business statement, which does not relate to that matter.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the Leader of the House prepared to give an undertaking on behalf of the Government that there will be no final decision to send British troops to Kuwait until Thursday's debate has taken place?

Mr. Newton: As the latest information that I received before coming to the Chamber was that no formal request of this kind had been received, the appropriate thing for me to say is that these are matters for discussion in the debate on Thursday.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the motion be drawn sufficiently widely to enable us to consider what happens as we send troops and naval personnel to the Gulf? I am thinking in particular of the use of the flag officer sea training facilities at Portland, which have been used for every deployment to the Gulf and to other theatres of war, and of the quality of the training that is provided there.

Mr. Newton: All this will be subject to your views, Madam Speaker, as to what is in order. As I have said, the debate will take place on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. It could not be drawn more widely than that.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State for Defence will open the debate. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman be in a position to tell us what impact the deployment of troops in the Gulf area would have on the extra battalion in Northern Ireland?

Madam Speaker: Order. That question also is far too wide. The Leader of the House has made a very narrow

statement about a simple change of title. He has paid the House the courtesy of informing it of the change and of letting it know which Secretaries of State will handle the debate. I must ask hon. Members to restrict the questions to those matters.

Mr. David Tredinnick: Will my right hon. Friend explain why he did not consider linking this matter with the deployment of British troops in the Yugoslav theatre—

Madam Speaker: Order. I refer the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members to "Erskine May", which, on page 297, makes it very clear that questions arising from a supplementary statement of this nature should be very narrow. I shall take only a few more questions.

Mr. Tony Benn: Can the Leader of the House give us an assurance, first, that no further military attacks involving British forces will take place before the debate; and, secondly, that it will be possible to move an amendment to the Adjournment motion so that those who are opposed to the use of force will be able to register their opposition?

Mr. Tredinnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. I take points of order after statements.

Mr. Newton: As you, Madam Speaker, above everyone, know, questions about what would or would not be in order are for you rather than for me. However, my understanding is that amendments to motions for the Adjournment would not normally be in order. As to the earlier part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I repeat what I said to his hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South about not seeking to pre-empt the debate on Thursday.

Points of Order

Mr. David Tredinnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have been trying to follow the ruling that you have just given, and I do not want to transgress in any way, but it occurs to me that perhaps the deployment of forces in the Iraq theatre is related, in that the numbers of troops—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am trying to help the hon. Gentleman and the House. I will read the two lines from "Erskine May" that relate directly to what has just taken place:
The Speaker has ruled that when a narrow business statement is made,"—
which is exactly what has taken place—
changing only one item of business, supplementary questions are confined to that item.
The Chair will allow a wide debate. It is a debate on the Adjournment and, as the Leader of the House has said, it could not be much wider than that.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order.

Madam Speaker: Order. I am quite capable of seeing and hearing hon. Members.
The House has been delayed by points of order that are simply points of frustration.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I hope that my point of order is entirely relevant. The debate on Thursday, now merged, means that the detailed consideration of a number of aspects of the problems and conditions of the Royal Air Force will now not be able to attract the attention or be given the time that would otherwise be available; problems such as contractorisation, career prospects and procurement will all be diminished.
I know that you cannot instruct the Government on how they should structure business, Madam Speaker, but my point of order is this. Every year, for so long that a precedent has been established, the House has had the opportunity for regular debates about each of the three armed forces. The abuse of this precedent—that is what it is—means that proper consideration of the service in question will be minimised.
I ask you, Madam Speaker, or, if you cannot give a ruling, the Leader of the House, to give an assurance that there will not be a long delay before the House has an opportunity to have a debate in which the detailed considerations and anxieties of the Royal Air Force can be considered.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is aware that I cannot rule on that matter. It seems to me to be the sort of subject that he might put to the Leader of the House during business questions at some time.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday there were a number of points of order arising out of your response to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) when he made a Standing Order No. 20 application about Iraq. I think that it is fair to suggest that your reply left the door ajar. It seems to me—I would like you to respond to this if that is possible—that this business statement today is some recognition of that half-open door, but that a debate has been produced that is unsatisfactory not only to my hon.

Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who wanted to speak about the Air Force in detail, but also to those of us who would have liked a proper vote in respect of Iraq and the bombing, and the lapdog attitude of the Government to Bush, that man who is drugged to the earholes. We all wanted to take part in a principled debate, but I am afraid that it is like the curate's egg: it is a bit of both and it is not the right answer that you promised yesterday.

Madam Speaker: I promised nothing yesterday, as the hon. Gentleman will know if he looks at Hansard. He must draw his own conclusions.

Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you confirm that an Adjournment motion will not allow substantive amendments to be tabled? This seems unsatisfactory to whole range of opinion in the House, as many hon. Members would have liked to submit amendments on the degree of United Nations sanction for any action that might be taken.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and the House are aware that no amendments can be tabled to an Adjournment motion.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Can you confirm, Madam Speaker, what I think you just said—that it will be possible to have a vote on Thursday evening so that those of us who do not support the Government's policy in the Gulf may have an opportunity to register that dissent, as opposed to the consensus that has been presented to the whole country until now?

Madam Speaker: I did not say that at all. I made the point that it was a motion on the Adjournment. The hon. Gentleman knows what that means as well as I do: there can be no amendments to it.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it possible for you to use your good offices to persuade the Leader of the House to review what he has just told us? A number of hon. Members who have spoken are opposed to what has been happening. Those of us with different points of view, with reservations, nevertheless believe that it is necessary to have a debate on what is happening in Iraq and what should or should not be done. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover and other hon. Friends have made the good point that no one will be absolutely certain about the debate: will it be mainly about Iraq or the situation in Iraq? Why not simply have a debate on Iraq?
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who said that matters relating to the RAF will not be adequately raised, surely there is a case for having a proper debate, as always, on the services including the RAF. Will the Leader of the House consider changing his mind?

Madam Speaker: Such questions must be put to the Leader of the House during business questions. It is not a matter for the Speaker of the House, who has no responsibility whatever for arranging the business programme. It is for the Leader of the House and the usual channels, as the House knows.

Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I raise a matter of greatest importance


which has come to the attention of the House during the past quarter of an hour, and I seek your advice. Although I do not want to deal with the specific case on which you rule, there is a wider case, which is the politicisation of the civil service. It seems that, over the past 14 years, there is a possibility that the objectivity of the civil service, which is precious, is now in question. How can we have a full examination of that matter by the House?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can try to achieve that by putting a question to the Government during business questions. He can achieve it either through debate or by questions in the House.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point is that—this is from the Front Benches—the change of title of Thursday's debate has changed the whole character of the debate. In practice, it will be a debate on Iraq. During the three previous debates on the Gulf in the last Parliament, in a consensus, supporters for the Government, mostly Privy Councillors, were wheeled out on both sides, largely to the exclusion of any significant extent of dissent.
There is a significant extent of dissent among Opposition Members towards the Government's supine support of American policies. I hope that, with your fresh occupation of the Chair, Madam Speaker, bringing a new view to the House, the consensus which prevailed in those three debates on the Gulf will not prevail on Thursday.

Madam Speaker: That is hardly a point of order for me. The debate on Thursday is in the hands of the House itself.

Mr. Bowen Wells: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. For the benefit of the House, could you rule whether the previous five points of order put to you were points of order or points of frustration?

Madam Speaker: They were certainly not points of order. I will not attempt to describe what they were, but they certainly were not points of order.

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You and the House will know that I am a member of the Select Committee on Defence (HON. MEMBERS: "Very important."] I agree, and if anyone thinks differently, they are fairly stupid.
Arrangements have been made for the Select Committee on Defence to visit Supreme Headquarters, Allied Powers Europe on the day of the debate. I do not need to go into great detail except to say that that will mean that many of the members of the Select Committee

will be excluded from the debate because they are required—[HON. MEMBERS: "You can choose."] I will continue—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I am trying to find out what the point of order is. The hon. Gentleman will undoubtedly come to his point now.

Mr. Cook: I am trying to remove some of the ignorance and short-sightedness which is evident on the Government Benches. If an hon. Member is to fulfil his duty to the Chamber, I must be present on the Select Committee visit. For us to get back from the visit in time will mean that probably only one hon. Member will be able to contribute to the debate. My point of order is whether you, Madam Speaker, can prevail on the usual channels to institute some device that will ensure consultation to include members of a Select Committee on a particular topic, rather than exclude them. It is a perfectly reasonable question, after all.

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members who speak in the House must first catch my eye, irrespective of whether they are members of a Select Committee, Standing Committee or whatever.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Would you ask questions in the right places about the abuse of the letter board yesterday by the Secretary of State for Education?

Madam Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me more information and come to my office. I always try to help Members on such matters.

Mr. Harry Barnes: As someone who served in the RAF in Iraq, do I stand a chance of being called on Thursday?

Madam Speaker: That is the most pertinent point of order that has been put to me today.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

LIVERPOOL HOUSING ACTION TRUST

That the draft Liverpool Housing Action Trust (Area and Constitution) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Question agreed to.

Telephone Entertainment Services (Supervision)

Mr. Terry Lewis: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a statutory body for the supervision of telephone entertainment services
I return again to the issue of filthy phone calls and, most specifically, those which take place in premium-rate services, about which I have spoken to the House many times. Recently, I spoke in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill at great length. Therefore, I have no desire to go into the sordid cases again. Instead, I wish to deal with the detail of how such services are regulated at present under the system of self-regulation.
I welcome the concern expressed by the Leader of the House. He is in his place for the debate, as he promised at business questions last week. That gives me an opportunity to clarify my question to him. I mentioned that, like other right hon. and hon. Members, he had daughters. I felt that that would give right hon. and hon. Members a different perspective on the offences against some young ladies which I have raised in the House over the years and the consequences of allowing the services to continue.
The Leader of the House seemed to be under the impression that I was suggesting that the daughters of Members might have been involved in the lines. I was not. I am worried about the safety of women away from the services that we are discussing—on the street and in public places. I want right hon. and hon. Members who are members of the Government and have powers over such matters to think along those lines. It might be educative and informative for them to speak to their wives and daughters about the issue that I have raised, about which there have been mountains of publicity in the past six or seven years.
When I speak of the need to improve regulation, it is obviously a criticism of the existing system of self-regulation under the so-called Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services. I have long believed that the system is inadequate, and have said so on many occasions in the House. Events in recent weeks and months prove the point that I have made.
The committee is compromised, because it is funded by the industry which it is supposed to police. It is compromised because its chairman is on record as saying that he does not see anything wrong with pornographic conversations between two people. He ignored all the other problems of which Members of Parliament will be well aware.
The premium rate services started in 1985. ICSTIS was set up following growing public disquiet in 1986. What has it achieved? It has achieved one or two good things, but has done so always by the back door, picking away at the periphery and never attacking the heart of the problem. ICSTIS did not deal directly with the huge bills that youngsters were running up for their families or that employees were running up for small businesses. It established a fund, made providers of such services put up a bond of £50,000, appointed a retired High Court judge and established a bureaucracy to vet claims.
My view then, as now, is that, if a service being sold in the marketplace is useful and people want to buy it, there is no need for such a fund. Why try to sanitise something before it is delivered to the marketplace? That process should have been attacked, but that did not happen.
All the chatlines that caused problems with high bills have now gone because the providers of such services would not put up the increased bond, and because I and many other hon. Members encouraged people to apply for compensation from the fund, which killed it. Why go through all that trauma? Why punish families with debt? Why let all that continue without attacking the problem?
The only sanction that ICSTIS can apply is—after tortuous procedures—to recommend to British Telecom that the provider of such a service should be disconnected. I and several newspapers have given evidence to ICSTIS and to other people that the system does not work. As soon as the providers are cut off, they set up somewhere else and usually provide even worse services than before.
In her latest investigation, Denna Allen, a national journalist from The Mail on Sunday, said:
British Telecom pulled the plug on Michael Allen's firm EasyBreak last week following revelations that girls were breaking the law by talking dirty.
But wealthy Allen has been advertising a new "Best Live One-To-One' sex line called Greetland in The Sport newspapers.
So as EasyBreak lines were silenced, Greetland numbers were humming with callers.
Both companies share the same Manchester adddress and Allen, whose wife's firm Comtel was originally cut off, is carrying on in business. Comtel was owned by his wife and was closed down three years ago when I was instrumental in getting a BBC journalist into its offices—I had to get her down via a fire escape because things were getting risky, but that is another story.
ICSTIS can demand tapes which are often doctored—as the providers have admitted—and can cut off the providers, who then go somewhere else and perhaps nominate their spouse as the next owner of the business. Such providers still employ people in Dickensian conditions, and they still corrupt and demean which is against section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984.
Parliament cannot touch the people whom I have been complaining about for so long, and there is something sinister, demeaning and wrong about the whole process. I want to bring the subject back into the public arena, so that Parliament can restore its authority over such matters. The Telecommunications Act is ripe for fresh consideration, as people have been able to skirt around section 43 willy-nilly. ICSTIS cannot help, OFTEL will not help and Parliament should reconsider the whole subject and do something about it. As the list of sponsors shows, I have all-party support for the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Terry Lewis, Mr. Don Dixon, Ms. Ann Coffey, Mrs. Ann Winterton, Mr. Roy Beggs, Mr. Peter Hardy, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Terry Rooney, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. William Ross and Mr. George Howarth.

TELEPHONE ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES (SUPERVISION)

Mr. Terry Lewis accordingly presented a Bill to establish a statutory body for the supervision of telephone entertainment services: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5 February and to be printed. [Bill 115.]

Orders of the Day — European Communities (Amendment) Bill

Considered in Committee [Progress, 18 January]

[MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]

Mr. Barry Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Is it still a convention of the House for hon. Members to give notice to other hon. Members when they propose to make personal attacks on them in the Chamber? I have in mind column 71 of yesterday's Hansard. Is it also a convention for the hon. Member who makes the attack to give way to the recipient? I have in mind column 73.
I do not seek to detain the House for long, Mr. Morris, and I know that you will decide whether the conventions were observed last night. Let me say, however, that I do not think that they were observed; let me say also—as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) repeatedly refused to give way last night—that her assertion was completely untrue.
The Deeside Toyota engine plant formed the centrepiece of my election address. The general managers of Toyota UK and Toyota Deeside wrote separately to thank me, suggesting that my co-operation and support, and my visits to the engine factory, had been much appreciated. It is a magnificent factory, and I feel that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South behaved in a rather shabby manner last night.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising his point of order at the beginning of main business. I have read yesterday's Hansard, and I note that my colleague the First Deputy Chairman dealt with the issue at the time. It is, however, worth reminding hon. Members on both sides of the House that, if they intend to refer to other hon. Members, they should do those hon. Members the simple courtesy of dropping them a note, or putting a note on the board. If neither course is possible, they should do their best to contact the hon. Members concerned in their offices.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. If your ruling applies to me, does it also apply to the attack on me that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) has just perpetrated?

The Chairman: I have already made it clear that my ruling applies to every hon. Member in the House.

Clause 1

TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 9, after "II', insert (except Article 128 on page 33 of Cm 1934)'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 131, in page 1, line 9, after "II' insert
(excluding Article G D(18) on page 16 of Cm 1934).'.
No. 213, in page 1, line 9, after "II', insert "except Article 128(1)'.
No. 214, in page 1, line 9, after "II', insert "except Article 128(2)'.
No. 215, in page 1, line 9, after "II', insert "except Article 128(3)'.
No. 216, in page 1, line 9, after "II', insert "except Article 128(4)'.
No. 217, in page 1, line 9, after "II', insert "except Article 128(5)'.
No. 53, in page 1, line 10, after "1992', insert
but not Article 128 in Title II thereof.

Mrs. Clwyd: The purpose of amendment No. 5 is to enable the House to discuss article 128 of the treaty, which concerns culture and creates a new legal competence for the Community. Previously, the Community justified its actions on cultural affairs by reference to article 235 of the treaty of Rome.
If the amendment is put to the vote, I shall ask my right hon. and hon. Friends not to support it.
I regard article 128 as one of the most important in the treaty. It relates to the essence of civilised living, and it will lie at the heart of future developments in Europe. When Jean Monnet, the founding father of the European Community, was asked some years later what lessons he had learnt, he replied:
If we were to do it again, we would start with culture.
I wholeheartedly support the idea of the Community's stimulating intellectual ideas, cultural activities and artistic creation. However, I can see some dangers ahead and I shall discuss them later.
Article 128 calls on the European Community to
contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity".
Paragraph 1 also talks about.
bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore.
I am not sure whether I know what a common cultural heritage is, but I suspect that it is grounded in the ideas and values of the Renaissance, in the Enlightenment Project and in liberal political thought. Certainly I believe that to be a better approach than seeing Europe's cultural heritage in terms of what the writer Ken Worpole described in a speech in Vienna last year as a
spatially bound and historically continuous national cultural past".
Culturally, history seen in those terms is on the one hand romantic and safe, but on the other illusory and dangerous.
I believe that the approach that I have outlined as a basis for European heritage is more likely to be useful and less open to abuse than that which seeks to define it in terms of ethnic origin, racial background or some spuriously defined European identity.
Having said that, it is important that cultural development within the European Community should act to some extent as both challenge and counterpoint to some of the shallower cultural developments in the United States which threaten to engulf the western world. Some of that culture is shallow and tacky. That is perhaps not surprising, as it is the product of commercial and private patronage as well as an expression of triumphalist


capitalist values. While one may deplore snobbish distinctions between so-called high art and low art, we should not be afraid to contrast good and bad art and seek to build on the European traditions of good art.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Listening to the hon. Lady's somewhat surprising attack on American culture, one is bound to ask whether she has ever heard of jazz. Does she think that that is a product of unbridled American capitalism?

Mrs. Clwyd: There are exceptions to every rule; I consider the hon. Gentleman's point somewhat unnecessary.
Paragraph 2 of article 128 calls for co-operation between member states in four specific areas: first, the improvement of knowledge and dissemination of the cultural history of the European peoples; secondly, conservation and safeguarding of cultural heritage of European significance; thirdly, non-commercial cultural exchanges; fourthly, artistic and literary creation, including the audio-visual sector.
Paragraph 3 calls on the Community and member states to foster co-operation with third countries as well as with various international organisations. No one should be surprised that Britain was adamant that any proposals under article 128 should have no effect unless they were agreed unanimously.
Returning to the overall aims of article 128, I begin by pointing out to our European partners that the public expenditure settlement for the arts in Britain next year shows that our Government are prepared to renege on both the letter and the spirit of its provisions. If the future of European culture and article 128 depend on the actions of this Secretary of State and this Government, bad times are ahead.

Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most essential cultural provisions of any civilised country is the ample provision of libraries? Those of us who had the privilege of being educated partly in public libraries—and who make no apology for that—believe that it is deeply regrettable that so many libraries are closing and that existing libraries are open only on certain days. Indeed, it is now almost impossible to find libraries which are open every day from Monday to Saturday, and then only for restricted hours, through no fault of the staff.
Should not one of the first priorities be to reassure people that there will be adequate provision of libraries and books? Apart from all the rhetoric, such provisions have done so much in the past, and hopefully will continue in future, to give people the opportunity to read and to widen their horizons, giving them an understanding of events which otherwise they would not have.

Mrs. Clwyd: That is a good point. There is tremendous concern about the future of British libraries. My hon. Friend is not one of the great supporters of the European Community, but he will notice as I proceed with my speech that I shall state that I hope that, when it comes to maintaining our culture and all that it means, the Community will press member Governments to make adequate provision for libraries, so that people may continue to enjoy what they enjoyed in the past under

Labour Governments. They are worried because provision is diminishing under this Government. Perhaps the Minister will offer us assurances on that.
After the 1922 autumn statement the Select Committee on Treasury and Civil Service decided for the first time ever to question the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about the national heritage budget. It is to be congratulated on so doing. In its report, published on 16 December, the Committee points out that in real terms, using the Treasury GDP deflator, the spending of the Department of National Heritage will fall by no less than 5.4 per cent. in 1993–94 compared with this year. The Committee goes on to say that expenditure by the Government on the performing arts will fall in real terms by more than 10 per cent. over the course of the survey period, compared with 1992–93.
Judging by these figures which, to our European partners, are both shameful and pitiful, the future of music, literature, drama and the fine arts is far from safe in the Secretary of State's hands. It is no wonder that Peter Jones, the outgoing director of English National Opera, has described the figure as
a killer blow for arts organisations big and small".
He and others have quickly spotted that, at the first opportunity, the Secretary of State has broken the Conservative party's promise in its election manifesto to maintain expenditure on the arts.
It is a pity that successive Prime Ministers and Arts Ministers have not been able to match President Mitterrand and Jack Lang, the former French Minister of Culture, in providing inspirational drive and massive cash resources for the arts and culture. That being so, is it any wonder that, while Paris flourishes and threatens to become the cultural capital of Europe, London becomes ever more polluted and less pleasant to live in, with its culture on the verge of decline?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Robert Key): The hon. Lady tempts me too much. I noticed that there were no wails of anguish when the arts budget increased by 30 per cent. over two years in the previous two years. I noticed also that she still regards Paris as only a threat—quite rightly, because the artistic talent of this country is second to none in the world and will continue to be so.
I further notice the way in which the hon. Lady endorsed the comments of her hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) about libraries, which were astonishing. His views on public libraries are antediluvian and bear no relation to the excellent library facilities that we have. As a matter of interest, it is Labour libraries that have been closing, notably in Derbyshire, and it fell to me and to this Government to insist that some of them be reopened.

Mrs. Clwyd: The Minister has not answered the main point of my attack. He has not denied that there will be cuts in expenditure on the arts in the coming year. His answer was a diversionary tactic. Nor does he have much to say about the future of libraries. He can only accept my hon. Friend's valid concept of the worth of the library service to the British people. I hope that the Minister will address the points that I am making rather than try to divert the argument.

Sir Teddy Taylor: It is fair for the hon. Lady to attack the Government's policies. If she were a


member of the Council of Ministers and were considering applications for cultural funds from, say, Windsor castle to pay for repairs there and from the Coliseum in Rome, on what basis would she and her hon. Friends decide which was the more European proposal?

Mrs. Clwyd: I appreciate the deep-rooted dislike that the hon. Gentleman has for the European Community, but I fail to understand the purpose of his question. One would make decisions as a Minister according to the priorities of the day, so it is impossible to answer his question. I should certainly not promise £60 million of public money to repair Windsor castle without making sure that the money was not available from elsewhere.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mrs. Clwyd: I shall give way later, when I have made progress with my speech.
News of the Government's incompetence over the British Library project, which has rightly merited comment from the Treasury Select Committee and the Public Accounts Committee, has long since reached Europe. The management of the project, which compares badly with the way in which, for example, the French manage their great national and international schemes, is making Britain a laughing stock.
Much of the world admires the best of European culture—Italian painting, German music, French literature and British drama—which, for the most part, have been liberating cultural forces in Europe and have helped to develop societies which are liberal, tolerant and civilised, but I am conscious of the fact that, in Europe and elsewhere, art continues to perform many roles. Governments and established institutions in Europe have often encouraged art to express national pride and identity.
Locating art and culture in that way in specific places at specific times may be no bad thing. The problem comes when art and culture are used to create a nationalism which is exclusive and threatening and when art and culture are used emotively to stir up national passions. In the years between the two world wars, Goebbels on behalf of Hitler used many art forms—films, radio, music, dance and sculpture—for such purposes. In that way and at that time, European culture became embroiled in—and debased by—a perversely destructive ideology.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend lest I bring down upon my head scalding denunciations of my lack of culture, of which I am aware. I do not disagree with much of what my hon. Friend has been saying about a lack of commitment or finance for important aspects of our national artistic development, but will she spell out why she thinks that there should be any commitment in the Community to make that good? I see no indication that the sums of money or commitment about which she has been speaking would be forthcoming from anywhere else.

Mrs. Clwyd: I shall not pour scorn on my hon. Friend, who frequently makes valid points in debate. I am not certain of the point of her intervention, but I will give her one example of how the EC has assisted in providing money for cultural purposes.
When I became a Member of the European Parliament, one of the first actions of the socialist group was to insert a line in the budget to support less-used languages. I am glad to say that that line is still there and that it supports, among other languages, the Welsh language of which I know that my hon. Friend has some knowledge. Many activities in Wales depend on the money provided by that line in the budget. When it was suggested recently that the money might be cut, considerable lobbying ensured that it was sustained.
When I was a Member of the European Parliament, there was real awareness of the need to protect the diversity of culture and language in the European Community. I have no doubt that such sensitivities still exist and that money will be found when the need is established by Members of the European Parliament who, I hope, will be given more power by the treaty to influence the content of the budget.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Clwyd: I shall give way shortly, but for the moment I should like to proceed.
No one should doubt that, if fascism arose again in Europe, art would once again be contaminated and artists would be tempted to collaborate with evil forces. The recent discovery that Heine R. Müller, one of Germany's finest authors, was an agent of the security police and supplied words for Stasi files, is a grim reminder of how artists can betray values. If such a regime arose, there would, of course, be differences because a modern European dictator would almost certainly concentrate more on controlling pop art and pop culture and would make more use of advertising and communications agencies, which have a curious ability to act without regard to moral values.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I share the hon. Lady's concern about the perverted use of art for ultra-nationalistic purposes. Is she confident that the article that we seek to amend will not be used by European institutions and the Commission in particular as a vehicle for European propaganda for a European state with a European culture? To a certain extent, that would be a perversion of the use of art. Is the hon. Lady not concerned that the article might be used to exert pressure to rewrite European history books? Perhaps we would find out that Waterloo was an honourable draw.

Mrs. Clwyd: The answer is that I am not in the least concerned about that prospect. I was taught no Welsh history in Welsh schools because that became part of the curriculum only comparatively recently. I sometimes wonder how I, as a person of distinctive nationality, could have been denied the history of my country within the United Kingdom. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to address that, rather than speaking about what the Community might do to rewrite history.
Despite worries in Europe about the rise of right-wing forces and an increase in racism, there is yet no sign that fascism is seriously on the march. However, concerns have been expressed, not least in the European Parliament, that the concept of European culture must not become an expression of fortress Europe, creating barriers to immigrants and propelling racist forces within the EC.
One of the principal reasons for setting up the EC was to prevent central Europe from developing in that way and to ensure that democracies, guided by pluralist principles, would become the norm rather than the exception. Those who would break up the EC and replace it by what President Mitterrand has called "tribal Europe" would risk loosing political and cultural forces which could destroy our democratic values. No one should be in any doubt that, in a tribal Europe based on competing nation states, cultural forces would combine for the worse with the new politics.
There is, of course, another and more hopeful side to what I have been saying. Art does not always serve the needs of Governments. It can be critical, questioning, unnerving, radical, and even revolutionary in intent and content. It can make Governments sweat and even blow them off course, sometimes by the power of simple explanation, sometimes by using irony, ridicule and satire, or it can, as in the case of films and television, embarrass Governments by the sheer power of its imagery combined with explanation. We know that that is true. It is one of the reasons, for example, why the Government have sought to interfere with the broadcasting authorities over programmes such as "Zircon", "Real Lives", "Death on the Rock" and "Tumbledown". Nothing, not even drama, is safe from interference from the Government.
The people of Europe know just how revolutionary art can be. Writers played an important role in helping to create the climate in which the French revolution could take place, a revolution which has been more written about than almost any other event in the history of the world. On the very morning that the revolution broke out, even Wordsworth—a reactionary poet—was forced to make the refreshing comment:
Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive".
Two hundred years later, the last Conservative Prime Minister, now Lady Thatcher—for whom notions of liberty, equality and fraternity meant nothing—made it clear to the House of Commons and to the French people that she could not understand what the celebrations were about.
More recent political upheavals, in Russia and Czechoslovakia, were given impetus by the work of writers such as Solzhenitsyn and Havel. Fortunately, oppression sometimes encourages creative art, and art sometimes inspires action through imparting knowledge, raising emotions, creating expectations and giving people courage.
Tomorrow, in the European Parliament, there will be a debate on the priorities identified in article 128. Perhaps I can make some suggestions to enlighten that debate by highlighting the following points. First, the Community laws, which have so far been adopted with a view to creating a single market, do not provide a genuine defence of pluralism. Unless we can act quickly, there will continue to be an alarming decline in the heritage of artefacts, traditions, styles and ideas which underpin Europe's pluralist identity.

Sir Russell Johnston: I wanted to get in before the hon. Lady went on to discuss the views which may or may not be expressed in the debate tomorrow in the European Parliament. My point relates to the third paragraph of article 128, which refers to

responsibility for co-operation with international organisations and specifically refers to the Council of Europe. There has been tacit agreement up to now that the European Community deals with a lot of things but that the Council of Europe has the lead position, as it were, in respect of culture. Does the hon. Lady feel that this article will change that balance?

Mrs. Clywd: No. I am sure that the Council of Europe, UNESCO and other organisations will have a continuing role to play and that the one will not diminish the other in any way. I am sure that the hon. Member does not need further assurances on that matter: I have no doubt that that will be the case.

Mr. Stuart Randall: I should be most grateful if my hon. Friend would explain to me why the Labour party has taken the position that it has. Essentially, article 128 seems to be about encouraging national diversity. It is all about co-operation between member states and third-world countries. It is not about harmonisation. Why are we discussing this? Is it just because we have put down a probing amendment, or is it about extending the competence of the Community in this way? I should like to know.

Mrs. Clywd: I thought that I had made myself clear at the beginning. I said that it was an opportunity to have a debate on this subject and not to vote at the end of it.
The second point that I should like to make is about language, which is perhaps the most powerful cultural influence. That being so, the EC must seek ways of protecting and promoting languages, including those spoken by minorities. The Minister and I have one thing in common: we speak the oldest living language in Europe—Welsh. He may now speak Spanish better than Welsh, but I know that he can speak the Welsh language, which goes back to the sixth century. Unlike Anglo Saxon, we need no help in understanding language that was written in the sixth century. I shall use a few words, which I shall spell out in detail afterwards:
Gwyr a aeth Gatraeth oedd ffraeth eu llu
That is part of a sixth century poem in Welsh, which everybody who speaks Welsh understands. The Minister, no doubt, will want to repeat those words. Unfortunately—

The Chairman: Order. Despite having a Welsh surname, I regret that the Chair does not know what that means. The House should know what it means.

Mrs. Clwyd: It is difficult to translate poetry, as every hon. Member will know. It is a battle-cry about men going into battle at Catterick camp in Yorkshire. It does not sound quite as good in English as it does in Welsh. If Conservative Members press me, I will happily recite the whole poem in Welsh.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Clwyd: I should like to complete the point before giving way.
Unfortunately, less than a quarter of Welsh people now speak the Welsh language, but I have no hesitation in prophesying that the language will never die. It has lived next to a very strong culture and, despite the centuries of


living shoulder to shoulder with that culture, has managed to survive. I am sure that the new Welsh language Bill will ensure that it will survive and that the European Community will recognise the importance of other languages and cultures and help to sustain languages such as Welsh. Special attention must be paid to translation, publishing, book distribution, promotion, reading, inter-library co-operation and, of course, broadcasting.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: "a'r mwyaf o'r rhai hyn yw cariad".
I trust that the hon. Lady can translate that for hon. Members who cannot do so.

The Chairman: Order. I repeat that I cannot translate it. I had some difficulty passing O-level Latin, if that was Latin. It is important, and I hope that hon. Members will not abuse it, that we must know exactly what everybody is communicating. I must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to be kind enough to translate it for the record.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: It is slightly biblical. It is to do with charity:
"faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity"—
in Welsh.

Mrs. Clwyd: I understood the odd word, although the hon. and learned Gentleman may need some help with his pronunciation. One or two words were quite clear.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: The hon. Lady mentioned with great and justifiable pride the traditions of the Welsh language, but we are talking about the European dimension, and Hebrew is a much older language which has been in continuous use. Surely Hebrew is part of European culture and civilisation as well? It is the particularity of this—the direction of funds, the support of what and for whom, who controls it, and what are the democratically accountable elements—which determines part of this debate, and I hope that the hon. Lady will have regard, first, to Hebrew and, secondly, to who will democratically control these funds.

Mrs. Clwyd: The hon. Member may be interested to know that Hebrew and the method of teaching it very quickly to people have been the foundation for some of the rapid courses in teaching Welsh. I thank him for that observation.
In many ways, the process of the European Community and the European Parliament in deciding priorities and budget lines is more democratic than in the House. When I was a Member of the European Parliament, it was possible to vote a budget line by line—something that is not possible under the procedures of the House. The hon. Gentleman might like to give the European Community and Parliament some credit for that.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is it not also true that, having voted it point by point, the European Parliament may frequently see the whole of the budget overturned in a very short time?

The Chairman: Order. We are not discussing the European budget; we are discussing the deletion of culture, and the reasons why it should or should not happen.

Mrs. Clwyd: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) for making that point, and perhaps I can answer it another time.
The biggest problem facing the Community—and, thus far, the Community has done little to alleviate it—is the scourge of unemployment. It is the Community's biggest challenge. It is clear that the development of cultural industries across Europe could play an important role in both bringing down unemployment and enhancing civilised values. Here is a potential area of enormous growth, particularly where cultural industries link up with developments in information and communications technology. The Community has the ability to set up and maintain cultural networks and to create and strengthen cultural links.
The European Community is the ideal forum to create a European film industry, the creation of which would provide new and exciting prospects for Europe's film buffs. A successful European film industry would have important spin-offs for many art forms, as well as providing a boost for jobs. Britain has every reason to support such a venture because of the collapse of our own film industry. Both here and in respect of the cultural industries to which I have just referred, the EC should be prepared to give grants and loans for imaginative projects.

Mr. Key: I am sure that the hon. Lady would not wish to leave the story half-told. This country has the benefit of some of the greatest film makers in the world. She will acknowledge the way in which, despite the very tight public expenditure round, we have joined Eurimages, the European film agreement, which will have an impact on the British film industry.

Mrs. Clwyd: Despite the rosy picture that the Minister paints for us, I am afraid that not many people would share his view of the British film industry at the moment. Certainly film makers themselves would not do so.
The European Community should consider ways of making member states improve the quality of life by encouraging better standards of design in all areas, including public buildings and spaces. In Paris, Seville, Barcelona and elsewhere, design has been an important driving force behind inner-city regeneration. The EC should seek to ensure that national Governments and cities have coherent planning policies and access to good architects.

Sir Teddy Taylor: How could you do that?

Mrs. Clwyd: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me tell him. It would be helpful if the European Community could set up across Europe "percentage for art" schemes through which a small percentage of new building costs is used to enhance the immediate environment with sculpture and other works of art. The European Community could ensure a level playing field in that sphere.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Clwyd: I am sorry, but I must proceed. I have given way many times.
Similarly, the European Community might draw up regulations on resources for public art projects. The object of such schemes would be to improve the local environment, the design of housing estates, waiting areas in benefit offices and out-patient departments in hospitals.
Britain should want to support such ideas. Last year, although the Government spent £3 billion on public buildings and works, they failed to use design and architecture to create a good environment. Perhaps the European Community has to set the standards.

Mr. Budgen: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Clwyd: I have given way many times. I understand that some hon. Members may want to prolong the debate, but I wish to conclude.
The European Community should certainly see one of its roles as that of preventing Government interference in the arts and guaranteeing rights of expression and the freedom of the press in Europe. British legislation is notoriously deficient in that respect and, as we all know, the recently published Calcutt report said little that was worth while on the subject. The European Community also needs to prevent national Governments interfering with, or censoring, satellite television.
In times of recession, Governments—especially the British Government—often behave in a particularly philistine fashion and look to the arts for cuts in public spending. Governments secure those cuts not only through the direct control of central Government spending, but often by placing limitations on spending by local authorities. Britain is in precisely that situation now.
One way out of what one might call the philistine's dilemma would be for the European Community to set minimum percentage targets for public spending—national and local—in member states and on cities and regions within member states. That would be one way of ensuring that Britain recognises the crucial importance of the arts to a civilised society and shows that recognition by substantially increasing the resources devoted to arts and culture.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Morris. I had come to listen to part of the debate, but not to participate, before going to chair a meeting. I had not expected to be provoked to get to my feet. I have the greatest personal regard for the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and I am delighted to welcome her to her new responsibilities—I believe that this is the first time she has spoken in the House since she took her new position—but she made an extraordinary speech, and we should put the record straight on one or two issues.
Although we never have any cause to be complacent, we have cause for quiet pride in the arts in Britain in the past 20 years or so. I do not want to weary the House with innumerable examples, but I shall mention just a few. Let us consider the number of new art galleries which have opened in London in the past decade—the Sainsbury wing at the National gallery, the Clore gallery at the Tate and the Sackler galleries at the Royal Academy.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): Capitalists paid for them.

Mr. Cormack: As my right hon. Friend says, capitalists paid for them. I am not citing these examples to heap praise on the Government although I believe that the Government's record stands up fairly well. I am saying

that we have cause for pride in this country in what has been achieved, just as we have cause to be proud of the fact that London is without doubt the theatre capital of the world. This very day there are far more theatres open here, with wonderful productions, than in any other capital city, not only in Europe but anywhere in the world.
Let me give a plug—if hon. Members want a wonderful, scintillating evening of marvellous British or English entertainment, let them go to the Globe theatre to see a stunning production of Oscar Wilde's "An Ideal Husband" starring Michael Denison, Dulcie Gray and Hannah Gordon. That is only one example of the richness, diversity and quality of art available.

The Chairman: Order. I have been listening intently to the hon. Gentleman, but he must relate his comments to the Community.

Mr. Cormack: I have every intention of doing so. You must forgive me, Mr. Morris, for being provoked by the unfortunate, snide and denigratory remarks of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley.

Mr. Jessel: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Cormack: I hope that my hon. Friend will not be too long.

Mr. Jessel: The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) was, of course, disparaging London as against Paris, which gives a European dimension. Surely London is the musical capital of the world and Paris is not a patch on it. In London there is a great diversity of orchestral concerts and recitals. We have four or five great orchestras and, night after night, London is far superior to Paris.

Mr. Cormack: In his inimitable style, my hon. Friend has made the very point that I was going to make in answer to your justifiable comments, Mr. Morris.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley has considerable knowledge of Welsh Opera, but she was less than fair to our cultural richness. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) was justified in saying what he said. When we consider Britain in a European context, it is clear that we have every right to hold out heads high—and not only with regard to the performing arts. We have no cause for complacency, but we look after our great buildings far better than most other countries on the continent. Of course, there are things to be learned from other nations and it is right that we should do so. We should work together to enrich our common inheritance.
However, one has only to pass through the villages of France, where the upkeep of churches is vested in the state, to see romanesque church after romanesque church neglected because there is no local pride, feeling or contribution. Rome has already been mentioned in passing. It is a city to which we all look for so many of our common roots, but we can contrast the appalling neglect of some of mankind's greatest monuments with the way in which we in this country try to maintain our heritage. Sometimes it is only right for us not to be complacent or ridiculously proud, but we can take a quiet pride in some of the things that we have and in what we have done to ensure that we keep them.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman will recollect that he made it possible for some of us to go


to Czechoslovakia, which was to our great intellectual advantage. That leads to the issue of art theft from which the British art market—and possibly the German and French art markets—benefits but to the detriment of the churches and wood carvings of Bohemia. It is an urgent European problem, even more so in relation to Russian icons. Will the hon. Gentleman endorse the seriousness of the problem, which he, like me, has raised with the Government?

Mr. Cormack: I am glad to give the endorsement that the hon. Gentleman, whom I am glad to call my hon. Friend, seeks.
I strongly support not only our presence in the Community but the general terms of the treaty to which the Bill refers because it gives the Community the opportunity to enlarge. It is in the enlargement and greater enrichment of the Community, by bringing in not only the Scandinavian but the eastern and central European countries in the next decade, that we shall pay our greatest cultural and political service to Europe.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: rose—

Mr. Cormack: I shall just finish what I am saying in response to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) who raised an extremely important issue.
A cultural heritage which is shared and treasured together is more likely to remain intact and to produce reciprocally acknowledged safeguards from the political institutions within the nation states than one which is diverse and scattered. I totally understand and utterly agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I simply do not see how the glories of European or cosmopolitan culture have anything to do with the Government. There has been cross-fertilisation for years—the French in Russia, the Russians in Poland, the Swedes in Poland, and the Poles in Sweden. It is absolute nonsense to have governmental interference with culture. As my hon. Friend is a co-author of the most hideous, hippopotamic carbuncle that is to be built in Bridge street—a building which will do everything to harm the record of British architecture and British art—he is hardly in a position to be pompous.

Mr. Cormack: I shall not take any lessons in pomposity from my hon. and learned Friend. Nor do I need any lessons in eccentric and ridiculous utterances. Whether one likes a building is entirely a matter of taste. I should, however, make the point that many people agree with me that, in selecting Michael Hopkins to design the new parliamentary building, the House of Commons made a very wise choice. Mr. Hopkins has produced designs for a building that promises to be one of the most distinguished of the second half of the 20th century—a century not renowned for its great buildings.
However, I shall not allow myself to be led astray any further. Although I have clashed with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) on matters of taste, I totally agree with him about institutional interference in the arts. There is no art that is not diminished and impoverished by governmental interference of the sort that my hon. and learned Friend has in mind. However, it is very important to recognise the contribution that the arts of the continent make to our European identity, and we neglect them at our peril.
I shall never forget an experience that I had in Romania shortly after the revolution there three years ago. I went to talk to a group of young Romanians on the subject of democracy, and it was one of the most deeply moving experiences of my life. I met a great many young people who had never had an opportunity to travel—the opportunity to experience Britain or France or Italy or the bad manners of my hon. and learned Friend in his eccentric garb.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: On a point of order, Mr. Morris.

The Chairman: I hope that this is a matter for the Chair. There seems to be a certain amount of revelry in the Committee.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Is it proper for my hon. Friend, whose manners are always appalling and whose dress is worse, to comment on the dress of other hon. Members? I understood that that was something one just did not do. I am properly dressed, nationally dressed and tastefully dressed. The fact that he is a squit is no justification for such comments.

The Chairman: Hon. Members are taking this matter much too far. Let us get back to the debate on the Commission and the Community. There must be no further insults. I ask hon. Members throughout the Committee to remember that.

Mr. Cormack: I completely agree. In any case, any insult directed from that quarter I take as a compliment.
The young people I met in Romania had spent their whole lives under the most appalling of regimes, yet many of them spoke faultless English. When they were asked where their inspiration came from, almost all of them said that it had been derived from literature and music and through the maintenance of their part in a common European culture.
The Community has a role—much less intrusive than has been suggested by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley—to play in ensuring that the incomparable riches of European literature, music, drama and art are not only kept alive but promoted, and it is proper that Governments should inject funds to sustain them. I was provoked by the hon. Lady's critical comments about this country. We have reason to be proud. It is important that these points be made and acknowledged by those who care about such things.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), in introducing this debate, which has taken a highly entertaining turn—a turn hardly to be expected after her speech—said that she had some difficulty in recognising European culture when she saw it. She seemed to have some difficulty in recognising culture at all. It seems to me that she was curiously blind to the culture that has emanated from the new world, which has so greatly enriched the old world and, at least in so far as it uses the English language, is now probably among the more lively components of our culture. For instance, many of the great English language playwrights of the 20th century are from the United States. Arthur Miller is perhaps the greatest living writer of plays in the English language. The hon. Lady's remarks were cheap.
This debate seeks to focus on the role of the European Community and on the expanding part—even if the expansion is limited and gradual—that it is anticipated the


Community might properly play. There are many ways of responding to the question, "What is European culture?" In the minds of some, European culture may be the glory that was Greece, the grandeur that was Rome, and all that stems therefrom. It may be a common awareness of the cultural framework which, regardless of national boundaries within Europe, enables us to adopt cultural references. Tilting at windmills may be a Spanish metaphor drawn from Don Quixote, but it is one that springs to the lips of politicians in this country not infrequently. At times I was inclined to think that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley, in attacking the Government, was behaving rather like Don Quixote with regard to the subject of the arts.
Similarly, only the most purblind cultural nationalist seeks to appropriate to himself a particular genius within Europe. How many people beyond those who happen to live in the small country of Austria, where Mozart spent most of his life, claim to appreciate his work? It is not because Mozart happened to spend a number of months in London composing his early symphonies that we share the Europeanness of his music; rather, it is because we appreciate his music as an integral part of the heritage to which we all belong and with which we have grown up.
Likewise, it would be absurd for the German people to appropriate Schiller as peculiarly theirs as so much of his material was drawn from other histories, other sources. I am thinking of his horrific play "Maria Stuart", which depends upon the history of my country, Scotland, and which formed the basis of an Italian opera by Donizetti.
These cultural influences are now so interwoven that the kind of cultural nationalism which we have seen sometimes advocated by junior Ministers from the Department of Education in promoting the reading of particular books in the common curriculum seems to me to be extraordinarily misplaced at the end of the 20th century. To suggest that all children under the age of 12 in this country should become word perfect in the St. Crispin's day speech in "Henry V" seems to me to be a peculiarly narrow view of the dramatic purpose of Shakespeare's play, and to seek to appropriate Shakespeare to this country in a way that is somewhat laughable.

5 pm

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, as a person not quite of his high culture, but surely there is also a danger of a kind of universal culture, a mish-mash. Is there not a danger that it all gets confused, like a kind of mid-Atlantic television; like Muzak, a kind of culture-zak, which is rootless and meaningless? If we are to avoid that, people have to be grounded in the art, literature, culture and music of their own country as a starting point for going out and absorbing the culture of the world.

Mr. Maclennan: I give way to none in seeking to promote the culture of my own country, but, if we have to start off with "Greensleeves" in our appreciation of music and elevate it in importance ahead of Mozart because it happens to be of great antiquity and a much loved piece of English music, we are getting things slightly out of proportion.
To revert to the question of what is European culture, I accept that, in describing some of the high points of European art as the common heritage of all European citizens, there may be some risk that we fall into the trap of promoting some sort of mish-mash. But I must say to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) that there is not a common framework of reference for ourselves and the Chinese, for example. There is undoubtedly a very highly developed culture in China, but it is largely foreign to people living in Europe. It may be that gradually that will break down and that gradually there will be a much greater awareness of these things, but that may take centuries; it will certainly not take less than many decades.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am listening very carefully, but in this country in the 1700s very large numbers of artists were busy copying Chinese patterns, furniture and lacquer. It may certainly be true that the number of British people who read Confucius every day is limited, but the idea that somehow or other the gap between Britain and China is unbridgeable is not correct. We have shown the sincerest form of flattery, which is imitation, for some centuries.

Mr. Maclennan: Obviously, Europeans are aware of Chinese culture, and the Chinese were aware of European culture when they produced goods for export in the 18th century modelled on European designs for the English, and even the American, market. But there is not the same degree of comprehension of these discrete cultures as there is of the European culture. This is not to rank or rate cultures; it is simply to recognise that we grow up with the language of European culture, as we do not yet with other cultures, although no doubt, as communications improve and as the influence of our ethnic minorities grows within our own community and makes us more aware of some of these cultures which are not yet appreciated in the same way, this will change.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the way in which the English and the Scots acquired this European culture, in the course, particularly, of the 18th and 19th centuries, is extraordinary? We all know that it is only possible to acquire culture with the assistance of state grants. The way in which gentlemen went on the grand tour to try to acquire European culture was quite extraordinary. There was no Minister of Arts, no grants and no European policy for this. One might even say that it is impertinent of individuals to take upon themselves an activity which ought properly to be exclusively that of the state.

Mr. Maclennan: I was coming on to the central point of the interventionary speech of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) about funding. This influence goes back a lot further than the 18th century. The university of Glasgow, the city in which I was brought up, was founded 500 years and more ago on the model of the university of Bologna. The patronage that made that possible was not that of the state; it was that of the Church and Bishop Turnbull.
There has always been patronage of the arts. In earlier centuries, it may not have been the state as currently organised, but it has certainly been as a result of the specific and deliberate fostering of what very often was a minority interest by those in authority. If one looks back to the Athens of Pericles, or the Florence of the Medici,


one sees that those people were not only wealthy, they were also rulers. That, in effect, was the state funding of its day. The fact that we have somewhat different constitutional arrangements today in no way diminishes the importance of recognising the role of the state in fostering the arts.
The Community, in proposing to adopt article 128, in title 9, on culture, is taking quite modest steps forward in the development of this process. They are entirely desirable steps, for hitherto, although the European Community has been able to expend a modest amount of money on the arts—I believe some £5 million per annum, approximately—it has done so in the margins of other expenditure upon commerce, inter-state relations and promotion of the concept of the European identity, in a rather narrow, public relations manner. It has not been able to devote funds strictly to the fostering of the arts for their own value as such.
The provisions of the treaty which we are now debating—there is more than one provision linked together—enable the Community to develop with greater deliberation its cultural function and identity and to take into account its cultural needs in promoting other valued activity on a Community basis. I am thinking, for example, of the importance of taking into account cultural interests in the development of competition policy. It is important that it be recognised that the national heritage should be a consideration which may be taken into account in justifying expenditure which might otherwise be struck out under the provisions of article 92, but which is explicitly safeguarded by the proposed amendments to this treaty.
It seems to me that the European Community can help to promote the sense of citizenship, the virtue of citizenship, of this wider organisation by promoting the cultural identity of Europe and giving itself a competence which it has hitherto not enjoyed.
As I said, it is a modest step, partly because article 128 permits only unanimous action to be taken. It does not involve a great encroachment of national authority; it merely allows steps to be taken when there is agreement. I doubt whether that will prove to be an obstacle to the development of community funding and a common approach to the arts because such matters, as opposed to other areas of public policy, tend to be less controversial between nations. Therefore, I strongly welcome the changes made to the community law as they relate to culture. They recognise the common history, inheritance, and interest in the promotion of art in Europe.

Mr. Jessel: Some 35 years ago, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) played I believe, a violin in the Oxford university ensemble club in which I played a double bass. That is the only time that I have been in harmony with him, as I have not agreed with a single word or action of his since.
This debate is about culture, which is a wide concept. It is about what people are. It is not simply about their language, religion, art or heritage; it is also about their loyalties and to whom they feel they belong.
Paragraph 1 in article 128 of the treaty says:
The Community shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member State, while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore.
I do not know what the "common cultural heritage" is, but I am sure that it should not be brought to the fore. I believe that it is the national and regional diversity which should

be kept to the fore. So I disagree with the basic attitude which article 128 seeks to project. The hon. Gentleman said that article 128 was modest, but attitudes matter.
May I first refer to national cooking and cuisine, as that is an aspect of culture? I will be brief. The three greatest European cuisines are French, Turkish and Italian. French cooking is, of course, the glory of France and its identity perhaps taken with its language. It must not be blurred by some common European cultural heritage. It would be utter nonsense to expect the French to blur their cooking with fast foods, supermarket frozen foods, McDonalds and so on. We must uphold the national and regional diversity in France, Turkey, Italy, Scandinavia and the other sources of European identity as expressed in national cuisine.

Mr. Kim Howells: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that perhaps the European Parliament or the national Government should ban McDonalds from entering their national heritage?

Mr. Jessel: Yes; I think that those countries might seek to encourage that, because they want to put to the fore the idea of a European cultural identity. They should not do that; they should foster national differences and put them first and foremost. That seems to be what life is all about.
We all need to feel that we are part of something bigger than we each are. Life consists of interlocking circles. We are all part of our country, political party, village, firm, religion or whatever. Those are all natural units to which it is a reasonable human instinct to want to belong. However, it is not a natural human instinct to want to belong to a continent or to feel some sort of European identity. Attempts to bring that about artificially are doomed to failure. I hope that they are doomed to failure especially in the gastronomic field.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Is it possible to have different loyalties at different levels? Can people be loyal to a continentwide culture as well as to their own country? They can be loyal to the countries within the United Kingdom, their regions, towns and villages. Why do they have to be exclusive, one from the other?

Mr. Jessel: We all feel loyalty to more than one of those units or circles which comprise the life in which we all participate. Some of those units, such as the family and the nation, are more natural instincts than others. If one tries to foster a cultural identity for a continent which is not natural, it will not stick, and something will give.

Sir Russell Johnston: I have no objection to the hon. Gentleman feeling the loyalty which he has expressed so well, but I take exception to being told that I am in some way expressing something which he must define as unnatural if I feel a loyalty to Europe.

Mr. Jessel: It is unnatural. Hardly anyone feels it. If institutions and people try to foster an unnatural instinct, it will crash and will not work. All over the world, there are groupings of nations, federations, unions, communities and so on. We have seen federations collapse in the Soviet Union, in Yugoslavia and in Czechoslovakia. There is friction in Kashmir and in Quebec. In Europe, the Ottoman empire crashed. The Austro-Hungarian empire


crashed. If one forces nations together against instinct, it will not stick; it will crash in violence and blood, and it will end in tears.

Mr. Maclennan: I know that the hon. Gentleman is making an extremely serious point about federations and so on, and he used gastronomic examples to illustrate his point. Does he accept that he is on a hiding to nothing if he forces British or English people to eat toad-in-the-hole in preference to poulet à l'estragon?

Mr. Jessel: Of course we all want to taste foreign cooking. I am proud of the fact that I am the chairman of the all-party Indo-British Parliamentary Group. I believe that there are more Indian restaurants in Britain than in India. That is a most remarkable thing, if it is true. I am delighted that there is an increasing consumption of Indian food in Britain, but that does not mean that we should govern India, or that the Indians should govern us.

The Chairman: Order. That subject does not come under this amendment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will relate his point to the Community rather than to India.

Mr. Jessel: Absolutely, Mr. Morris. I accept your rebuke. You are right; I was trying not to dodge the question of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland.
I turn to the question of the arts in Europe. After 17 years' service, I have just resigned from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which is the 25-nation body on which you, Mr. Morris, have also served. You will be familiar with what I am saying. I was the rapporteur for the introduction of European Music Year 1985, which was the tercentenary of the births of Bach, Handel and Scarlatti who were all born in 1685. European Music Year, on which we did three years' work, was an instance of co-operation between the Council of Europe countries and the European Community. It would have been inconceivable to hold European Music Year without involving Austria—the country of Mozart—Norway—the country of Grieg—or Spain, which, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will know, was not then a member of the European Community.
At the outset of European Music Year, I arranged for the great Belgian violinist, the late Artur Grumiaux, to play an unaccompanied Bach partita in the hemicycle of the Palace of Europe. Incidentally, that building belongs to the Council of Europe and is rented part-time to the European Parliament, which sometimes pretends that it owns the building.
If there is a common cultural heritage within the wider Europe, it does not spring from the fact that it is European. The mainspring of the cultural tradition which is called European is either religion—mainly Christian, or it could be widened to Judaeo-Christian—or national patriotism and loyalty. The common heritage springs from those two factors. In no way does it spring from some European continental instinct.
Let us take the great movements in European art—for example, in painting. They include Italian religious paintings, Dutch interiors, the great Spanish school and English paintings such as those by Reynolds, Gainsborough, Constable and Stubbs. The latter are English. They are British. Their inspiration is English. In

the context of the treaty and the debate, there is a bogus argument, with bogus logic. It is that England is in Europe; therefore, those English paintings are European paintings; therefore, they are part of a European cultural heritage; therefore, we shall bring a European cultural heritage to the fore. Yet there is no such thing. They are English paintings, and their inspiration is English.

Dr. Howells: Surely the hon. Gentleman realises that painting cannot be defined simply by its subject matter. The practice of oil painting spread from Europe. Our lack of awareness that technology, technique and ways of doing things are cross-frontier and universal has informed the whole debate so far. It is facile to describe such concepts as national. Paintings are as much about Europe as about Britain.

Mr. Jessel: Usually a painting is of a person, an event or a scene. The context is a country and a school of painting. The inspiration of a particular painting is generally much more national than European, even if techniques have travelled across boundaries. [AN HON. MEMBER: "That is total rubbish."] It is not rubbish. Let us take Italian opera, German orchestral and instrumental music or the British choral tradition—there are three choral societies in my constituency—or the work of Elgar, which is purely English and British. The "Pomp and Circumstance" marches or "Land of Hope and Glory" are clearly patriotic music which evokes patriotic feeling about Britain, not Europe.
British people want to keep institutions such as the last night of the Proms, which are a British, not a European, tradition. British people certainly want to keep our tremendous tradition of British military bands, which are the finest in the world and are trained at the Royal Military School of Music at Kneller Hall in Twickenham and are the envy of the world.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: As a painter, may I say that nothing that goes on in Europe is likely to alter my style of painting or influence it. I do not regard it as European but as Fairbairnian. Dutch paintings, for example, is as it is because the light in Holland is different from that in France, Germany, Italy, Spain or Portugal. That is why painters from those countries all paint differently. God help us if we all try to make them paint the same.

Mr. Jessel: Of course we must all accept that. No one would suggest that my hon. Friend is in any way the same as other people. Long may he remain that way. I hope that we shall continue to enjoy seeing his paintings in the Upper Waiting Hall.

Mr. Michael Ancram: Perhaps my hon. Friend could help me. Some time ago, I bought a painting by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). It is of an Italian harbour scene. Is it an Italian painting, a Scottish painting, a Fairbairnian painting or a European painting?

Mr. Jessel: Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend knew that my hon. Friend was a keen European and would be likely to buy the painting. [Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman has finished his speech, or is he giving way?

Mr. Jessel: I have not finished my speech. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Minister intended to intervene.
There are several aspects of European culture which we do not want here. One of them is pornographic films, as broadcast on cable television. They are broadcast in increasing quantity. People are worried about the effect on the well-being of their children. Nothing is being done to stop the broadcasting of such films. Everyone has seen and perhaps enjoyed rude things of one sort or another from time to time, but people do not want this stuff to come into their houses by cable television. The European Commission seems entirely lacking in determination to stop it. The Commission is not carrying out the will of the people of Britain in that matter.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend accept that even all Members of Parliament together can do nothing to stop Europorn coming into Britain, because of the European broadcasting directive, which was referred to briefly at two o'clock in the morning one day in 1989? That is a fact. Even if 650 Members of Parliament said that we wanted to stop European porn such as "Red Hot Dutch" coming into Britain and being sold in Harrow and elsewhere, there is nothing that we could do about it. It is not the fault of the Commission but that of the directive, which was approved by the Council of Ministers [Laughter.] It is not a matter for Foreign Office Ministers to laugh about. Some of us care deeply about porn being sold in Britain as a result of a European broadcasting directive.

Mr. Jessel: My hon. Friend is right. I am sure that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench heard what he said. I hope that they will say something about it when they reply.

Mr. Marlow: I realise that my hon. Friend is about to start on another part of his speech, which I am sure is important. Before he does so, may I ask him a question? He will be aware that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), who moved the amendment, said at the end of her speech that she hoped that, under article 128, the great panjandrums of Europe such as Mr. Delors and his friends would be able to set a target for spending on culture of a certain percentage of Government expenditure for all European countries, including Britain. Is it my hon. Friend's understanding that the article is pregnant with such potential atrocities?

Mr. Jessel: Yes. It is all part of the European Community institutions trying to tell us more and more what to do. It is all part of the concept of pooling the government of Britain with that of continental countries. The people of Britain do not want that in the arts, in culture or in any other field. Most of us have nothing against, for example, Spaniards or Italians, but the British people do not want to share in ruling Spain or Italy. They certainly do not want the Spaniards and the Italians to have a share in ruling us.
We want friendship and co-operation. In cultural matters there is already a tremendous amount going on by way of exchanges. Our great orchestras, singers, operas and ballets frequently travel on the continent. There is enormous international movement not only of the live arts but of exhibitions of the work of creative artists—so much so that some people have begun to worry.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: rose—

Mr. Jessel: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I must conclude.
Paintings are moved so often that some people are worried that they may be damaged as they are flown around the continent in aeroplanes. Many exhibitions are paid for by the British Council. I am all in favour of bilateral sponsorship, and some exhibitions are sponsored by American and Japanese interests.
The system is going extremely well. It does not need to be tampered with. We do not need bits of paper from the European Commission. We should remember that sound and sensible American doctrine: "If it ain't bust, don't fix it." Let us concentrate on diversity and cut out all the nonsense about bringing a common cultural heritage to the fore. We do not want it, we do not need it, we ought to have nothing to do with it, and we ought to throw out this terrible treaty.

Dr. Kim Howells: As someone who considers the definitions of what constitutes good, or high art, and bad, or low art, to be problematic at best and irrelevant most of the time, it grieves me to have to beg to differ with my esteemed colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). I suspect that the lyrics of Cole Porter and Bob Dylan explored and reflected the experience of contemporary life with at least as much veracity and insight as the very best librettist of a 20th century opera, and probably a lot better. It is not helpful to talk about the influence of culture in that way, nor is it possible to describe what is a great culture and what is bad.
So-called high or great art has appropriated modes of dance and speech which were—and are—developed in popular dance halls and on the streets, which are not necessarily recognised as the seedbed of great art by the people who are paid excellent salaries to tell us what does or does not constitute great art. I hope that article 128 will not result in a proliferation of salaried positions throughout Europe for culture vultures who, I am afraid, expropriate far too much of the money that is made available to artists, writers and musicians in Europe, and which should end up in their pockets, rather than with quangos from Dublin to Berlin.
The interesting aspect of article 128 is that it may make possible co-operation in film production throughout Europe. This country has a great, but aging reputation in film. We have watched our film industry decline rapidly during the past 20 years. Although we must be careful not to romanticise the French and Italian film industries, we have a good deal to learn from them about the way in which we fund films. It is important to emphasise that the British film industry—I say British because I want to differentiate between English and Welsh films—

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: What about Scottish films?

Dr. Howells: I shall discuss Scottish films in a different way.
We must understand the relationship between film making in this country, which is mainly English-speaking, and in America, as that is important if we are to understand our relationship with Europe. There has been a great flowering of European film making, especially after


the second world war, and a parallel decline in British film making. Perhaps that has as much to do with the direct competition that we face from English-speaking film makers in America as it has to do with any decline in cultural talent and creativity in this country. I believe that it has much more to do with that competition.
During the past five years, the Welsh language channel S4C has been one of the great cradles of film making, albeit on a modest scale, and large sums of money have been made available to it. I understand that they run to about £45 million a year at the moment. Knowing the Government, it is a mystery to some of us why that generosity continues. I am glad it does, because it is an interesting and worthwhile experiment, which shows that it is possible to fund film, or at least to create a seedbed of talent and hope that it will develop.

Mr. Key: That illustrates exactly what we mean by subsidiarity. The great benefit of article 128 in the treaty of Maastricht is precisely that it concentrates on what national Governments should do and does not seek to establish a grand European design. In the same breath, I must draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to what is happening in Scotland with the Gaelic language and the fact that, when talking about less-used European languages, it is important to understand exactly what we mean. We are not merely talking about languages spoken by a few score thousand people. The Danes are very sensitive about Danish being a less-used European language, as are the Germans in the context of publishing.

Dr. Howells: I thank the Minister for that intervention. I think that that is one of the easier examples of subsidiarity to understand. However, it must constantly be tested in this Parliament. We cannot take it for granted that next year's grant for Welsh or Scottish language film making will be automatic. I assume that it will not be, and that we shall have to fight that battle next year as we have done in the past.

Dr. Godman: May I point out to my hon. Friend that there is no hint of any application of the principle of subsidiarity in article 128?

Dr. Howells: Thank you. I understand that the article comes under the heading of those governed by subsidiarity—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It is in the first sentence.
On the funding of film making in Europe, I do not for a moment believe that the future lies with some sort of Euro-film culture. Some examples of joint film production in Europe are excellent, but I am afraid that some are the filmic equivalent of the Eurovision song contest. As a fan of cowboy films, I think some of the awful spaghetti westerns that have been made on the prairies of Spain and at Cinecitta in Rome are an example. However, we should not be put off by that—and nor should we see it as the model for the future.
The interesting aspect of article 128 is the possibility that it offers for the movement of capital and the joint funding of films. For whatever reason, there have been many heroic attempts to raise large amounts of money to make films in Britain. One thinks of the successes of people such as David Puttnam in doing so.
Film making is a phenomenally expensive industry, if the films are to compete in an international market. I

understand that the latest Steven Spielberg film cost about $55 million, and that the lead character—a dinosaur—cost more than it cost to make the film Casablanca. We must come to terms with how we can raise that amount of money. Whether because of Government policy or the backwardness of banks and financiers and their unimaginative policies, the money has not been forthcoming and our best talents have had to move across the Atlantic to try to find it. I hope that the opportunities presented by article 128 will make the Government take notice of the possibilities, and take a lead in seeking funds.

Mrs. Dunwoody: My hon. Friend mentioned the provision by the Community of money for the making of Welsh language films. Small amounts may be specifically allowable for what are patronisingly called "less-used languages"; but if the British film industry made a determined attempt to secure the fiscal and other support that other European countries give to their film industries, we should immediately be told that that would distort the pattern of trade. It simply would not be acceptable.

Dr. Howells: I cannot agree. This may sound like heresy, coming from an Opposition Member, but I do not believe that the future of films depends on state subsidy. The state cannot fund the film industry, regardless of who governs the state concerned. We cannot ask the taxpayer to put up $50 million, or the sterling equivalent. The role of the state is to create the seedbed for film talent—and, so far as I can see, nothing in article 128 will preclude that happening in this or any other European country. Indeed, we may be able to learn from the European example.
None the less, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has raised an important point. What will happen, for example, if free competition across European frontiers requires the fair competition office in Brussels to investigate the £45 million given by the British Government to S4C, the Welsh language channel? Will it be seen as unfair competition, on the ground that it promotes the British film industry? I fear that this may spell trouble for many of our finest institutions which currently receive state funds.
I have hopes for article 128. I think that it may advance the film industry—not through the idea that we shall come up with a European image of film, which I consider hopeless nonsense, but perhaps through the idea that the individual creative talent which exists in each European region and nation can be helped by receiving funds.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): I call the Minister of State.

Hon. Members: Why?

Mr. Garel-Jones: I hope that it will be convenient if I speak briefly—[Interruption.]

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. It is for the Chair to select speakers, and I have selected the Minister of State.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Thank you, Dame Janet. Like other hon. Members, I am extremely anxious to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) has to say.
The Committee will be grateful to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) for making it clear that her purpose was to provide the Committee with an opportunity for debate. So far, we have engaged in an amusing and interesting debate, and we have enjoyed that;


I must tell the hon. Lady, however, that—charming colleague though she is outside the House—her speech was, I fear, disappointing to all of us. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) rightly described it as an extraordinary speech, snide and denigrating in tone; the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said the same.
The hon. Lady treated us to a tour d'horizon, but I fear that her horizons proved rather narrow for me, at any rate—and, I believe, for the Committee. Hardly a commonplace did not receive a mention. The hon. Lady's remarks about United States culture and renaissance values, her attacks on the Government and Baroness Thatcher—[Interruption.]

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I do not expect to hear a seated commentary.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Thank you, Dame Janet.
Those remarks by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley were, I think, a disappointment to the Committee. They were not up to the standards that we expected. Moreover, in your absence, Dame Janet, she came out with some quotations in Welsh and invited me to follow her down the same route. I shall resist the temptation, as heaven above knows where it might lead me.
5.45 pm
The hon. Lady crowned her speech with a very silly proposition: that the European Community should set minimum standards of expenditure—and later on, no doubt, minimum standards of culture. As I have said, she came out with a number of commonplaces; even Dr. Goebbels got a mention. I think that it was Dr. Goebbels who said, "When I hear the word culture, I reach for my revolver."—[HON. MEMBERS: "Goering."] I am bound to say that when I hear the hon. Member for Cynon Valley discussing this subject I tend to reach for my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks)—who, alas, is not present today. I think that he would have dealt with the hon. Lady's remarks much more briskly and comprehensively than I could.
The article, as drafted in the treaty, responds to our concerns and provides a fully satisfactory basis for the development of cultural activity. It puts the emphasis where it rightly belongs—on national initiatives. It talks, for example, of the Community's "supporting and supplementing"—not replacing—co-operation between member states, and of the need to respect "national and regional diversity". It is also outward-looking in recognising the need for both the Community and member states to co-operate with third countries, the Council of Europe and others; and, in what is inevitably a sensitive area, it offers the safeguard of unanimity and specifically excludes harmonisation.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage has supported me throughout today's debate. As the creation of the new Department of National Heritage has underlined, the arts and heritage are of growing importance in many people's lives. That is true both in this country and in other member states. In practice, EC Culture Ministers have been meeting for several years, and the level of Commission activity has tended to increase.
It is an obvious advantage to have a proper legal basis for the co-ordination of this activity, which previously took place in a rather unfocused legislative context. Even

better is to have a clear definition of what it is appropriate for the Community to do in the cultural field. Thankfully, article 128 eschews the grandiose, and identifies some sensible areas, which member states can usefully work together.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister explain why it is necessary to clarify the legislative basis on which Ministers have worked together towards co-operation if—as the right hon. Gentleman has told us—those Ministers do not intend to implement legislation at senior level? Surely Ministers cannot co-operate cheerfully and then suddenly say that they want a legislative base without giving the House a clear indication that they will do something with that legislative base.

Mr. Garel-Jones: There are two answers to the hon. Lady's perfectly fair question. First, in the past four or five years we have become increasingly aware that, unless the areas in which Commission activity is permitted are specifically defined and limited, the Commission in its enthusiasm—which is sometimes well placed and sometimes misplaced—will seek to involve itself in areas where we had not envisaged its intervention. We have become increasingly exposed to that possibility since the passage of the Single European Act. Some articles in the treaty would permit such involvement—by unanimity, I am glad to say.
Secondly, as taxpayers' money is likely to be spent, even though the sums involved will not be huge, I think it right to define, limit and clarify the areas in which the Commission can act.
The extent of cultural co-operation and interchange in Europe is growing all the time. It is already a practical reality that we have experienced in Britain and shared with our European neighbours. One recent example in the United Kingdom was the European city of culture programme and hon. Members, particularly those representing Scottish constituencies, will remember that Glasgow played a quite outstanding role, which has been of continued benefit not only to the citizens of Glasgow but to Scotland as well.

Dr. Godman: What is the Government's current position on the Council of Europe charter on regional and minority languages? Are the Government closer to becoming a signatory to that charter, or do Ministers still have serious reservations about it?

Mr. Garel-Jones: Yes, it is under active consideration. We hope to be able to respond to that question shortly, although I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a precise answer now.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised a point about Bohemian wood carvings. Several of our diplomatic posts in eastern Europe have reported details of stolen articles of this kind. An exercise is being co-ordinated in co-operation with the Department of National Heritage with the objective of establishing a register of stolen articles, including Bohemian wood carvings, which can be circulated to auction houses in the United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) made an interesting and charming speech. At the end of that speech he said something which would have touched a chord with members of all parts of the Committee—

Hon. Members: We cannot hear.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I remind the Minister that both for practical reasons and for reasons of courtesy it is better that he should point in the normal direction.

Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham was expressing a sentiment that will be shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We all need to feel a sense of belonging to our own nation. That is important to us in the expression of our national identity. One of the anxieties that many hon. Members have felt is that, for a number of years, the Community has been moving towards seeking to persuade us that the sense of belonging that we feel for our nation can be, may be or should be replaced and substituted by a sense of belonging to the greater European ideal. In my judgment, the treaty in which the article that we are debating appears gives the lie to that and, to the extent that it ever was true, arrests the process and begins to reverse it.
Chancellor Helmut Kohl said in a speech in Oxford on 11 November:
We have not laid the foundation stone with Maastricht for a European superstate which will reduce everything to the same level and blur the differences. Rather we have committed ourselves to a Europe constructed on the principle of unity in diversity.
I am confident that the Europe to which article 128, through the cultural dimension, will make a contribution, will be one in which my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham will feel at home and comfortable and in which his English identity is both respected and enhanced.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am pleased to be following the Minister, as it seems to me that article 128 sums up precisely what is wrong with the treaty. It is really about time for the House of Commons to say plainly that the Community must stop imposing from above views that ought to grow from co-operation between nations. The article is a classic example of that.
The Minister told us that, because the Commission does not have a clearly defined role, whenever there is a difficulty it begins to expand into areas in which it has no business to operate. I can understand the Minister's wish to prevent those divisions from getting into administrative and legalistic problems, because they have no direct legal right to interfere in national affairs. But the reality is different.
The House of Commons gets into a frightful muddle when it talks about culture. We have heard one or two examples of that this afternoon. For example, the culture of my grandchildren, which to a certain extent involves the use of videos, books and paintings that are based on the use of computers and computer design, is not the culture from which I benefited many years ago, from teachers who had a far more formal way of teaching. I do not think that they necessarily gave me a more widely based culture—it was simply different.
We should be worried about accepting something that talks about a common culture and says that we should make money available for grandiose events that will look as if they are joint efforts, without asking precisely what that means.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) was concerned about the diminishing British film industry. There are bilateral treaties, and over the past 30 years there have been attempts by the industry itself and by

various cultural organisations to produce co-operative films, with varying degress of success, but the reality is that the Community allows enormous differences in national approaches, as it does on so many issues. Were we allowed to protect British films in the way in which the French protect their film industry, there would be some point in looking for a legalistic basis.
The French have always used every known barrier to protect French films, and they will continue to do so with impunity. They will think of a dozen different reasons. They will say that it is entirely a matter of protecting their language and culture, and that it is important to carry that culture to other nations. They use the money available for cultural budgets to go to Africa and other third-world countries to establish bases which are used, sometimes quite brutally, for the extension of trade—and good luck to them if they can get away with it.
If we tried to do the same thing, we should rapidly be told that there was no such protection available for English language films, because English is not a minority language. Not even in the House do we pretend that English is a minority language. From time to time, we might believe that we have the sole right to take control of it, but the truth is that, throughout the world, the film industry makes films in a language which is used commercially in a hundred different countries for a hundred different reasons.
The Community does not need such an article to get co-operation for cultural events. It is quite capable of that without any such definition. The Commission needs the article because it wants to extend its hegemony. That is the reality behind the clause, and that is my basic objection to it. Not all the affectionate or slightly esoteric commitments to the protection of the cultures of those using—that marvellous phrase that the Minister used—"less-used" languages will change the fact that the treaty is meant to "canalise", if we are making up words—[Interruption.] The Community makes up words all the time—its treaties could have been written by Lewis Carroll—so why cannot we all play the same game?
In any case, the Community is after a means of defining cultural pursuits and co-operation and the money available for culture. That is disastrous. The whole history of Europe shows that culture is the flowering of the arts created by individuals, not dictated by civil servants, by legislation or even by representative groups such as the House of Commons. Culture comes from inside people.
6 pm
Recently I saw the best piece of live theatre that I have seen for many years, in St. David's cathedral. It was an nativity play about morality, produced just before Christmas by mentally handicapped pupils of a school in the vicinity—young people who believe implicitly in the magic they create and who used that wonderful cathedral to the full, because they understood the connection between what they were presenting and that age-old marvellous church in Wales. That could not have been produced on a co-operative European basis. It grew out of the love and understanding of those young people.
Some hon. Members believe that the House of Commons has had its day, that we are moving to a larger theatre: a European theatre. So why, they ask, should we worry about an extension of the Community's powers?


They say that this is a logical evolution, a normal development towards different political institutions. Not so.

Mr. Winnick: Is it not interesting that, although some of the more enthusiastic pro-Maastricht Members think that the House of Commons has had its day, very few of them want to go to the European Parliament, but very large numbers of Members of the European Parliament, the moment there is a vacancy in the House of Commons, put forward their names and work hard to get here?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am disappointed that my hon. Friend should adopt such a cynical approach to our colleagues' aspirations in the other European institutions. It is remiss of him to think that some self-interest might be involved—

Mr. Budgen: In her absence, perhaps I might speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), who has aspirations to move on from this parochial gathering to a wider and nobler gathering in Europe. Perhaps she is an exception to the general rule.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I had hoped that the hon. Lady would be here in person tonight, because with her histrionic abilities, I am sure that she could define the difference between the theatre of the House of Commons and the theatre of the European Parliament.
To return to the article under discussion, some people think that it is possible to produce an entire programme, using taxpayers' money—taken from the taxpayers of the Community—to develop cultural and co-operative projects. The House is right to have deep reservations about this article. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) made a warm and committed speech, but I am not sure whether she thought it a good thing that we should develop this European cultural co-operation, or whether, on the whole, she had reservations about it. I at least have strong feelings—

Dr. Kim Howells: Is my hon. Friend saying that culture, as defined by article 128, is so narrowly described as to preclude the idea that the children who took part in that cultural event in St. David's cathedral will probably be able to remain in and around it because we have some European money to help to build roads out to Pembrokeshire? We have also managed to get some European money to build roads up to the valleys.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: We are just getting our own money back.

Dr. Howells: That may well be so, but we should not assume that one lot of money is acceptable while another is not—or that the one is not related to culture and the other is. That is to take an extremely narrow view of what constitutes culture in Europe.

Mrs. Dunwoody: This is my day for being told off by my Welsh colleagues. As a humble woman, I accept that criticism with humility—but I must tell my hon. Friend that what he says is a load of baloney. Some road schemes in this country are announced on large notices emblazoned with blue and gold stars. Those schemes enjoy a tiny percentage of money from the Community and a very large percentage provided by the British taxpayer. If my hon. Friend is suggesting that we can develop cultural events only by obtaining money from the Community, I

am not convinced. I should want to see a large budget, clearly defined and under the control of these, admittedly inadequate, Ministers before I was prepared to go along with such an idea.
One has only to read article 128 to realise the difficulties:
The Community shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore".
What a load of rubbish.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Read us some more.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I could read more of it in considerable detail. There has always been a common commitment to the beautiful. It was William Morris who said that one should have nothing in one's house that was not either useful or beautiful—and I think he meant, preferably both.
Those of us who want the lives of every citizen of this country to be enriched have always wanted access for those citizens to the best of our literature, translated or otherwise—even translations from Celtic enrich those who read them. We want access to museums, to art galleries and to the best of all real art. But the great dearth of culture in the lives of many of those who serve will not be filled by any of this nonesense. Their culture grows out of their interests and their views, and who are we to gainsay them? This article does not deal with that problem, and it does nothing about the dearth of money—money that is needed to help to create the essential arts.
In my constituency, a small unit teaches teachers to enrich the lives of small children using computers in fabric design, picture design and writing music. I have seen the children in question freed from the pressures of having to draw up staves and create tunes by working them out in their heads. They can use the keyboards and computers to compose music. That is the sort of project that we should be pursuing. Nowhere in the Community does it happen, because it would be regarded as beneath those in the Commission who are full-time cultural employees, concerned only with their manipulative powers to control from Brussels.
That is what this is about. It has nothing to do with culture. It is concerned with the extension of the powers of the Community. As such, I would go along with my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley and her fellow occupants of the Opposition Front Bench if they voted on removing the provision.
I would take that view not because I am against culture—even though my ex-husband always used it as a word of denigration; even I know that one must have an expensive public school education before one can be rude about culture—but because I do not see that we are discussing an area in which the EC has any right, legitimate interest or vision of what it is doing. It should not interfere where it has no business to stray.

Mr. Budgen: It would be disgraceful if I spoke for long, because my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), who was a distinguished Minister at the Department of Education, will undoubtedly have a unique contribution to make to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is also anxious to speak, for he has a strong view about the expression of British identity which is endangered by the article that we are discussing.
We are aware of the vigorously authoritarian attitude that is being pursued by the Government in bashing the Bill through the House. They will do their best, by the means available to them, to prevent my hon. Friends from expressing their views. I shall not do the business of the Whips by speaking for too long, thereby excluding my hon. Friends who have distinguished contributions to make to this important debate.
In a long and important contribution, the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) demonstrated what can be described as the progressive force of the Community. She says of article 128, "My goodness, this is a jolly good little article. This is a provision by which we in the Labour party can encourage the institutions of the Community to use their power to subvert the will of the British people, as for the time being expressed in electing a Conservative Government to power.
"We," says the hon. Lady, "would like to see rather more money spent on the arts. We should also like to see local authorities interfered with by a Labour Government in imposing various architectural standards and standards of expenditure. Sadly, we have not been elected by the British people to carry out those proposals, so let us see if we can get them enforced on the British people by a European side wind."
The hon. Lady then uses article 128 as a way of subverting our constitution, and she suggests ways by which it could be extended. As we know, certain people in the Commission would support her in those aspirations. In addition, the European Court, sometimes called a progressive institution, would be pleased to support the aspirations of the Commission in extending the power of the European institutions. So it is easy to see how article 128 could be used for the purposes which the hon. Member for Cynon Valley suggests. For those and other reasons, it is important that we hear the views of the Committee before a vote is taken on the subject.
It is easy for the Minister to look at a narrow interpretation of article 128 and say that the British Government are not likely to agree to it being extended by the Commission or by any of those in the EEC with federal aspirations. But the most dangerous feature of the way in which business is done in the Community is the trade-off. Consider, for example, the trade-off which allows a British Conservative Government to applaud even the extension of cohesion funds and to pretend that that extension fits easily with the philosophy of the Government, in so far as they have any philosophy.
6.15 pm
I understand that the Government now pride themselves on having none. In the bad old days when we had a British Conservative Government with a philosophy, it used to be rather uncomfortable to return with proposals for rapidly increasing expenditure in the EEC. In the bad old days when Lady Thatcher was leading the Conservative party, she used to find it disagreeable to explain that she had agreed, as part of a trade-off, to increases in expenditure.
When it is said that we do not particularly want the soldiers of the Cheshire Regiment or, as it may become, the Staffordshire Regiment, unhappily risking their lives for European purposes in Bosnia; and when, as may be the case, this House begins to express its distaste for the

European purposes of the Commission in the old Yugoslavia, it is likely that somebody will ask, "If you are going to take your troops away, do you think you could give us a bit more money for European culture?" So, rather than saying no to everything, the trade-off will be a slightly more progressive attitude towards article 128.
As I said, I shall be brief, because I am anxious that my hon. Friends are not excluded by the authoritarian attitude of the Whips from expressing their attitude towards the subject—[Interruption.] I hope that they will not only give their attitude but take action. Indeed, I am anxious that we hear the views of the whole House.
Article 128 is no insignificant matter, because it is to be considered a means of supporting and enhancing the identity of the European state. Why does any state subscribe money to the arts? In our modern democracies, money is sometimes given simply to buy support, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) is so crude as to point out—[Interruption.] He is a very good man, whose views I summarise by saying that he points out that sometimes the funds subscribed by working-class taxpayers are used to buy middle-class support for expensive shows for which the middle class would rather themselves not pay entirely.
That is state expenditure of a modern, democratic sort. Much reference has been made to state expenditure on the arts in the past. It is pointed out that the Medici spent a great deal of money. That happened not because the Medici were demonstrating, as they spent their money on art, that they had a particularly warm feeling for their citizens and were saying, "We must never poison another human being."

Mr. Cormack: Perhaps my hon. Friend is referring to the Borgias.

Mr. Budgen: Let us not go in for another assassination: let us respect the dignity of our citizens. The Medicis decided to put some cash into culture to demonstrate the power, the authority and the identity of their state. That is what article 128 is about: it is designed to allow those who wish to enhance the identity of the European state to give money to promote that aim.
I listened with care to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). I wonder what my attitude would be if I were a Welsh nationalist and there was before Parliament a measure authorising expenditure on the making of the Union Jack. I would vote against it, because the Union Jack is a symbol of the authority and identity of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Budgen: I should like to finish this peroration, and shall deliver a second one when I have had time to draw breath.
Article 128 is designed to enhance the identity of the European state, and that is no more and no less than what every state has done throughout the ages. It has taken money from the taxpayer to enforce its power and enhance its identity.

Mr. Rowe: I find my hon. Friend's picture more encouraging than the reality, which appears to be that organisations such as the European Community or the Arts Council spend far too much money encouraging


extremely divergent cultures and do their level best to revive minority cultures that would be better consigned to oblivion.

Mr. Budgen: In a democracy, Governments use cultural subsidies to buy the support of various groups. I shall give an example. Until recently, Wolverhampton council was for a long time controlled by the Labour party and used to buy the support of ethnic groups by offering subsidies to ethnic theatres. Of course, that is not much different from the Government offering to support the middle class and trying to buy their votes by giving enhanced grants to the Arts Council. That is an inescapable part of the modern democratic process, but it has been the practice throughout the centuries for the state to spend money on culture to enhance its authority. Of course, article 128 does not state the honest federalism of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) but slips it in slowly and surreptitiously, carefully and hypocritically, and deals with
bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore.
I do not know when European cultural policy will have a new boost. Perhaps it will be in 1996, when there is a mark 2 Maastricht treaty or when, eventually, the true federal nature of the European institutions will be unclothed a little more. Article 128 is just as much an expression of European identity as the provisions for European citizenship. Those of us who are British nationalists want to reject it all.

Mr. Randall: Essentially, the article is about co-operation between member states and with the third world to encourage diversity. That is a wonderful aim, which I wholly support, because culture transcends national boundaries. The article extends the Community's powers to cover culture, and that is welcome. The private sector, not just the Government, has an important role in funding the arts and culture. I was devastated by the way in which the funding of the Royal Shakespeare Company meant that some important productions had to be terminated. There was no scope for cutting costs, other than by reducing quality, and joint funding was essential.
The co-operative involvement of all Community countries as outlined in the article will benefit culture not only in this country but throughout the Community. Some such structure is needed because current co-operation is far too limited and needs to be extended. The arts and culture involve minority interests that cannot be funded by the market, because insufficient money is collected at the kiosks of theatres and other establishments. Therefore, there must be some subsidy.
Article 128 contains some worthwhile elements, and I am pleased that my party supports it. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) said that we would not vote against it, but one's voting intentions on the treaty as a whole do not show whether one supports or is against an article. That is why I intervened on my hon. Friend.
The co-operative improvement of knowledge of European culture and its conservation would be excellent. The notion of exchanges of artistic and literary creations would strengthen the arts and culture. The article would encourage national diversity: if it did not do that, but sought to create homogeneous cultures, I would have great reservations about it.

Dr. Godman: Article 128 would give the Commission far more competence on cultural matters. Is my hon. Friend relaxed about such a development?

Mr. Randall: Yes, I am—for the main reason that, when it comes to decision-making, recommendations will be made but there will be a question of unanimity, so I believe that there is protection if one has a feeling of horror about the power of the Commission. That is a powerful argument.
We are not talking about harmonisation at all. We are not saying that each national Government has to have the same legislation on this and that we are going to create art and culture like sausage out of a sausages machine. I am convinced that the will will exist throughout the Community and in our own Government and Opposition to ensure that that richness in our society would not be swept away. I believe that, although it is easy to put over the cynical argument that this is the Commission with Delors marching through and tearing our paintings off the wall and stamping on them and carrying out all that kind of nonsense, that cynical argument does not stand up because of the importance of this whole thing.
We are talking of the whole character and personality of our country expressed through this medium. That is all I wanted to say. Article 128 is worth while if one looks at it in isolation, as we must do in Committee. It is comprehensive and encouraging. The notion of the countries of Europe co-operating in this way is something which I find exciting; I am convinced that it will enrich the culture of our society and of Europe in a shared way which is utterly exciting.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: This culture article—article 128—reads like an article in the constitution of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It enjoys all the same sort of ad hominem goodwill, such as:
while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore.
It has a series of aspirational claims. However I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) who led for the Opposition in characteristic form, showing the true colours of this debate. She moved an amendment to remove article 128 from the treaty, and I intend to speak in favour of that amendment. The hon. Lady suggested that she was probing, but I could not identify one probing comment in her remarks. She indicated, however, that she did not intend to oppose the article. I am disappointed about that, and I will give my reasons.
My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) gave the essential concept of the nature of what is stated: art and culture are often used for the purposes of aggrandisement. I am very conscious of that aspect because in some of the instances that have been mooted and floated around the House—the great ruling families such as the Hapsburgs and the Medicis—it was to be an adornment for the state. That brings me to the point that I think has informed these debates the whole way through the examination of the Bill in Committee—that this is a constitution that we are considering. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) tried, under title I, to identify whether this did not have the elements of the state, of the executive, of their powers and


competetences and so on. One acknowledges that this small article 128 is an instance which lays claim to a common policy.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley noted that the article added a new legal competence to the Community, and said that additionally it was under a single institutional framework. Why is this necessary? The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) was cautious under title I to say that this House need only legislate for that which is necessary. What is necessary about legislation within the United Kingdom to enforce the objectives of this article? What is wrong with working as we have always worked—intergovernmentally—to establish the objectives and ideals that we seek?
We can go through the words, but what is diversity of culture and "flowering of cultures"? What is European culture? I suggest that European culture is the sum total of all the constituent elements in it, no more and no less. When we say "culture", it includes all the elements of those things to which we respond. Opposition Members identify what is meant by the distinction that is often made in a popular sense: popular culture, high culture and middle-brow culture.
All these are competing elements, and many of the objects now identified as culture grew from the popular activities of the people of individual nations. Over the years, they fade or come into glory as they are: the insistent drum-beat, that everything now needs subsidisation or the transfer of funds from one area to another, is to keep what in being? I think of all the thousands of artefacts from ancient Greece that have been destroyed. Part of life is a remembrance of things past; part of it is the echo through the lines of culture that we have. What hon. Members have said is quite right: our culture is a common culture in one particular—that it draws from all the strengths and beacons of light, of intelligence, of spirit and soul that have illuminated the ages. Yet none of this has required a central European organisation to identify it.
Who is the best custodian of culture? If it will not flower from within ourselves or the people, surely it is the national Government who have the greatest regard. Has French culture failed to flourish because there is no European central commission initiating proposals for the survival of French culture? The proposition is ridiculous. France, vigilant as always to its honour, its integrity, and the regard in which it is held in the world, consigns a third of its public revenues to the maintenance of its cultural objectives. It recognises in culture that the prestige, the association and the grandeur which comes from that are part of its standing in the world as a whole.
It is because the French as a nation state within the European Community identify that, that others do so. We see in Germany the huge level of subsidies poured into state opera companies, and God bless them for it. They must direct their resources where they want and identify the elements of culture that are theirs.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley opened by saying that she was in harmony with our Front Bench, thus emphasising that we are now living under a Con-Lab Government in respect of Maastricht and there is resentment clearly emanating from Labour Front-Bench

Members that they are not sitting with their colleagues in this matter, on the Government Front Bench. That illustrates the tensions involved.
No one, not even the Minister of State, explained why the matter needed a single institutional framework, nor why it needed a legal competence. If I understood his rather dismissive argument, it was that the Community extends its competences anyway and that putting some new competence in and giving it a legal life would limit its natural instinct to expand into other areas. That is a most extraordinary argument and a very confused one. If we are saying that we are all at risk without giving greater competences to the Community, that it will have them anyway, and that by giving them greater competences we are limiting this one, that is a very curious argument. Yet that is the sort of low-level, shallow argument of lies and deceit to be forced on the nation to tide us through on this Bill.
There has been no candid examination of any clause that I have heard in terms of what it is intended to accomplish. Why does it require a single institutional framework? Why does it need adjudication by the European Court of Justice? How do we democratically effect the objectives? We have talked about subsidy. Opera is a particular identity of Italy. The Italian state and the regional governments pour sums into opera houses that we do not even begin to understand. Does that require subvention from the centre,
acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission"?
Notice the insidious way in which the Commission must propose, because the proposer holds the agenda and controls the directions to which the Community looks.
That assault on such things as our culture has caused the Danes to pause and hesitate, because linked with culture is another matter that we shall debate later—citizenship and all the linking elements of the state. The treaty is driving us towards a conclusion that, of the whole Community, only the British Government—in association, of course, with Labour Front-Bench spokesmen—wish to hide and conceal from the British people. Ours is the only Government in the Community who do not believe that the treaty is a centralising treaty. Every other leader has said, "Hallelujah—we are now marching towards a more central, single identity."

Mr. Garel-Jones: rose—

Mr. Shepherd: I shall give way to my right hon. Friend, who would not give way to me.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I have given way to my hon. Friend on other occasions; I am sorry that I did not do so today. Does he think that the Dutch Government, whose unitary text was defeated, went back saying that this was a great success?

Mr. Shepherd: I said that every other Government believed that Maastricht is a centralising treaty.

Mr. Garel-Jones: rose—

Mr. Shepherd: Let me finish my point. If my right hon. Friend the Minister of State had had the courtesy to listen to the points and arguments advanced by Members across the Committee he would have been able to respond to them. It is difficult to put an argument when the response has already been given. The Dutch Government did not


get as federalist and centralising a measure as they would wish. Nevertheless, they recognised that the treaty is a centralising measure and told their people that.

Mr. Garel-Jones: When?

Mr. Shepherd: Several times—press reports have shown that.

Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend is making a series of assertions. The fact is that the Dutch Government were openly disappointed about the defeat of their text. I am not aware—if my hon. Friend is so confident, perhaps he can give an instance—that they have said that they regard Maastricht as a centralising treaty.

Mr. Shepherd: It is a consolidating measure. My right hon. Friend will have to accept my recollection from press reports. I assure him that assertions have been made across the Community that Maastricht is essentially a centralising treaty, that the elements of the state are coming into place and that competences are being extended. The parrot chant of the new Con-Lab Front Bench is that the treaty is held back by a concept of subsidiarity, but no legal judgment has given flesh to confidence, in a juridical sense, in the belief that that means anything.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Has my hon. Friend noticed the insidious wording of paragraph 1 of article
128, which says:
The Community shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore.
Does my hon. Friend agree that, when there is conflict between the two, as there is bound to be, the Community will emphasise the common culture at the expense of the national culture?

Mr. Shepherd: My hon. Friend identifies one of the central concerns. I add the concern that a common anything is a homogenisation. The criticism of American culture made by many people on the continent of Europe is that it insidiously infects and diminishes European culture. The violence of American films and the crassness of American civilisation and culture are often cited. We all affect each other, but I fear that a central institutional framework will homogenise, reduce and diminish. Ministers have not argued why the French need protection for their diversity and the flowering of their own culture.
The second concept that has not been dealt with in the debate is
Action by the Community shall be aimed at encouraging co-operation between Member States and, if necessary, supporting and supplementing their action in the following areas".
The first is
improvement of the knowledge and dissemination of the culture and history of the European peoples.
Again, I do not know what that means or why each individual nation, which is responsible for the custody and safeguarding of its historic traditions, cannot argue its own perception.
What is a European history with a common perspective? The one glory of life, civilisation and culture is that we stand on different hillocks, perhaps looking at the same distant horizon, but because the angle of perception is different, our interpretation of the view is also different. That is an intimate part of the culture and

diversities of the people of Europe. The institutional framework set out in the article contradicts the objective that it claims to seek.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend may be living under some misconceptions, which the article will help to put right. For example, he may believe that King Harold was a great English patriot trying to keep the French at bay and that Edward the Confessor was a traitor because he asked those dreadful Frenchmen to come here. The reality is that Edward the Confessor was a great European patriot, and what he did when he ceded his kingdom to William the Conqueror was a precursor for the Maastricht treaty. When the Commission takes over the writing of the European history that our children are taught in school, that new reality will be very much the truth.

Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful for that. I am always in awe of the perspective from Northamptonshire.
The dissemination of the culture and history of the culture of European people is a major debate on what constitutes history and what is history. Every hon. Member reads—other than the Home Secretary in connection with this treaty and public interest immunity certificates. Aragon was asked, "What is history?" His response was, "First you have to invent it." That is the argument that I am trying to put. We look from different perspectives and each of us has a particular recollection: that of the nation state, by language, unites a view. We fight over the interpretation of history, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has shown. We are very particular in our understanding of what it is. My fear is the homogenisation of all these matters.
The last thing that I want to say is about
artistic and literary creation, including in the audiovisual sector".
Let us remember what art and culture was about. It was a popular expression of who we are, but now we have to subsidise it. I recall a directive on the proportion of television programmes which could be devoted to matters emanating from the United States. The European Commission wanted to protect what it regarded as the European concept.
We genuinely have a difficulty: English is our language.
Churchill's "History of the English-Speaking Peoples" reaches around the world. We will always have a difficulty in that the accessibility of ideas, thoughts and spirit is communicated in a tongue that we understand. The United States will always be a great influence on us—and we, hopefully, on it—because of the commonality of our language. Our language reaches Canada, Australia and New Zealand. At the heart of all cultural, historical perceptions and so on, stands the fact that, no matter how rich or poor or what colour people are, we are united by our language. We speak the intimacy of our thoughts and experiences each to the other in our language.
All this nonsense, which is an endeavour to destroy the character of communities, of countries and of languages—all this tries to strike at the one great deception of Europe: it is not equal as regards public opinion, knowledge or understanding because it is not common in language. What do we do about that? Do we do something about it through this measure or through educational measures seeking some sort of Esperanto? In what direction are we heading?
Glory be to our diversity. What was it, that wonderful thing?
Glory be to God for dappled things.
We are a "dappled thing". Let us have glory for what we are and reject the nonsense of homogeneity in this treaty insidiously undermining our institutions and opening up a gulf between both Front Benches and the people. How can the people have respect for the House when we are marched through the Lobbies and forbidden to speak? We cannot even return to a question. Every application for closure is accepted. We have had no free speech on this measure.
What do all the dumb journalists in the Hallelujah Chorus up in the Gallery think they do with their absurd commentaries on the British process of making and unmaking laws? Not one stays to listen to the detail of debate. "Yesterday in Parliament" is now in the business of mere sketch-writing. I listened to it this morning and I did not know what were the matters being discussed in Parliament in respect of the greatest constitutional settlement of the past 200 years, taking away our ability to change what Commission officials—Eurocrats—determine is in the interests or nature of European civilisation, culture and history.
We are it, we are part of it, and our constituents are part of it. So long as we can hold Ministers accountable for their actions, we can change the laws under which we live. We can direct all the funds that we wish to any objective that the British people deem appropriate. But by these arrangements, sneakily put through by conniving Front Benches, the Con-Lab alliance on this matter intends to try to take away that right.
If I speak passionately on this, it is because I feel passionate about it. If I hear people ask why we have not got through the debate, as some foolish hon. Members do, I will tell them that this was the method by which other countries of Europe lost their freedom: good men sat on their hands. Good men—and women, too—said that it would not work, that our fingerprints must not be on the treaty, and all the rest of it. Yet here are the fingerprints, embedding themselves into our very vitals, demonstrating what is the spirit of it.
Across the continent of Europe, there have been moments when each of us has had to turn to the other for the survival of things in which we believe. We have seen atrocities, but so long as there are beacons for freedom, so long as there are Parliaments such as this which can express the views and will of the people, we can stand against the tyrannies which face the ordinary person in this world.

The Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. David Lightbown): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 296, Noes 257.

[Division No.115]
[6.53 pm


Ayes


Adley, Robert
Amess, David


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Ancram, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Alexander, Richard
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Ashby, David


Alton, David
Aspinwall, Jack





Atkins, Robert
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Forth, Eric


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Baldry, Tony
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bates, Michael
Freeman, Roger


Batiste, Spencer
French, Douglas


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Gale, Roger


Bellingham, Henry
Gallie, Phil


Beresford, Sir Paul
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Garnier, Edward


Booth, Hartley
Gillan, Cheryl


Boswell, Tim
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gorst, John


Bowden, Andrew
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Bowis, John
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brandreth, Gyles
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brazier, Julian
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bright, Graham
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hague, William


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hanley, Jeremy


Burns, Simon
Hannam, Sir John


Burt, Alistair
Hargreaves, Andrew


Butler, Peter
Harris, David


Butterfill, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hawkins, Nick


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hayes, Jerry


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heald, Oliver


Carrington, Matthew
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Hicks, Robert


Clappison, James
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Coe, Sebastian
Horam, John


Colvin, Michael
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Congdon, David
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Conway, Derek
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Couchman, James
Hunter, Andrew


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jack, Michael


Dafis, Cynog
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Day, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dicks, Terry
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Dover, Den
Key, Robert


Duncan, Alan
Kilfedder, Sir James


Dunn, Bob
King, Rt Hon Tom


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dykes, Hugh
Kirkwood, Archy


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knox, David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Evennett, David
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Leigh, Edward


Faber, David
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Fabricant, Michael
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lidington, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lightbown, David


Fishburn, Dudley
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)






Llwyd, Elfyn
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Luff, Peter
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacKay, Andrew
Shersby, Michael


Maclean, David
Sims, Roger


Maclennan, Robert
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Madel, David
Soames, Nicholas


Maitland, Lady Olga
Speed, Sir Keith


Major, Rt Hon John
Spencer, Sir Derek


Malone, Gerald
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Mans, Keith
Spink, Dr Robert


Marland, Paul
Spring, Richard


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sproat, Iain


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Steen, Anthony


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Stephen, Michael


Merchant, Piers
Streeter, Gary


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Sumberg, David


Milligan, Stephen
Sykes, John


Mills, Iain
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Monro, Sir Hector
Temple-Morris, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thomason, Roy


Moss, Malcolm
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Needham, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nelson, Anthony
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Nicholls, Patrick
Tracey, Richard


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tredinnick, David


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Trend, Michael


Norris, Steve
Trotter, Neville


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Twinn, Dr Ian


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tyler, Paul


Ottaway, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Page, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Paice, James
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Patnick, Irvine
Wallace, James


Patten, Rt Hon John
Waller, Gary


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Ward, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Pickles, Eric
Waterson, Nigel


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Watts, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wells, Bowen


Rathbone, Tim
Welsh, Andrew


Redwood, John
Whitney, Ray


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Widdecombe, Ann


Richards, Rod
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Riddick, Graham
Wigley, Dafydd


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Willetts, David


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wilshire, David


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wolfson, Mark


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wood, Timothy


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Yeo, Tim


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela



Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Mr. Robert Hughes and


Salmond, Alex
Mr. James Arbuthnot.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bell, Stuart


Adams, Mrs Irene
Bennett, Andrew F.


Ainger, Nick
Benton, Joe


Allen, Graham
Bermingham, Gerald


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Berry, Dr. Roger


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Armstrong, Hilary
Blair, Tony


Austin-Walker, John
Blunkett, David


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Boateng, Paul


Barnes, Harry
Body, Sir Richard


Battle, John
Boyce, Jimmy


Bayley, Hugh
Bradley, Keith


Beckett, Margaret
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Beggs, Roy
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)





Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hoey, Kate


Burden, Richard
Hood, Jimmy


Butcher, John
Hoon, Geoffrey


Byers, Stephen
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Caborn, Richard
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Callaghan, Jim
Hoyle, Doug


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Canavan, Dennis
Hutton, John


Cann, Jamie
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Carttiss, Michael
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cash, William
Jamieson, David


Chisholm, Malcolm
Janner, Greville


Clapham, Michael
Jessel, Toby


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Clelland, David
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Coffey, Ann
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Connarty, Michael
Jowell, Tessa


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Keen, Alan


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Corbett, Robin
Khabra, Piara S.


Corston, Ms Jean
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cousins, Jim
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Cox, Tom
Knapman, Roger


Cran, James
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Cryer, Bob
Legg, Barry


Cummings, John
Leighton, Ron


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Lewis, Terry


Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)
Litherland, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Darling, Alistair
Lord, Michael


Davidson, Ian
Loyden, Eddie


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
McAllion, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McAvoy, Thomas


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McCartney, Ian


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Macdonald, Calum


Denham, John
McKelvey, William


Dixon, Don
Mackinlay, Andrew


Dobson, Frank
McLeish, Henry


Donohoe, Brian H.
Madden, Max


Dowd, Jim
Maginnis, Ken


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Mahon, Alice


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Mandelson, Peter


Eagle, Ms Angela
Marek, Dr John


Eastham, Ken
Marlow, Tony


Enright, Derek
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Etherington, Bill
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Fatchett, Derek
Martlew, Eric


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Maxton, John


Fisher, Mark
Meacher, Michael


Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)
Meale, Alan


Foulkes, George
Michael, Alun


Fyfe, Maria
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Galbraith, Sam
Milburn, Alan


Gapes, Mike
Miller, Andrew


Garrett, John
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Gerrard, Neil
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Morgan, Rhodri


Gill, Christopher
Morley, Elliot


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Gordon, Mildred
Mowlam, Marjorie


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mudie, George


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Mullin, Chris


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Murphy, Paul


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Grocott, Bruce
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Gunnell, John
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hain, Peter
O'Hara, Edward


Hall, Mike
Olner, William


Hanson, David
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hardy, Peter
Patchett, Terry


Harvey, Nick
Pawsey, James


Hawksley, Warren
Pendry, Tom


Henderson, Doug
Pickthall, Colin






Pike, Peter L.
Steinberg, Gerry


Pope, Greg
Stott, Roger


Porter, David (Waveney)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Straw, Jack


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Sweeney, Walter


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Purchase, Ken
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Tipping, Paddy


Randall, Stuart
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Raynsford, Nick
Trimble, David


Redmond, Martin
Turner, Dennis


Reid, Dr John
Vaz, Keith


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Rogers, Allan
Walley, Joan


Rooney, Terry
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wareing, Robert N


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Watson, Mike


Rowlands, Ted
Wicks, Malcolm


Ruddock, Joan
Wilkinson, John


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wilson, Brian


Short, Clare
Winnick, David


Simpson, Alan
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Skinner, Dennis
Wise, Audrey


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Wray, Jimmy


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wright, Dr Tony


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Snape, Peter



Soley, Clive
Tellers for the Noes:


Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Spellar, John
Mr. Jack Thompson.


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 70, Noes 297.

[Division No. 116]
[7.11 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Leighton, Ron


Austin-Walker, John
Lewis, Terry


Barnes, Harry
Lord, Michael


Beggs, Roy
McAllion, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Madden, Max


Body, Sir Richard
Maginnis, Ken


Boyce, Jimmy
Mahon, Alice


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Marlow, Tony


Budgen, Nicholas
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Burden, Richard
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Butcher, John
Pawsey, James


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Canavan, Dennis
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Carttiss, Michael
Redmond, Martin


Cash, William
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Cran, James
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Cummings, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Simpson, Alan


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Skinner, Dennis


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Fry, Peter
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Gerrard, Neil
Snape, Peter


Gill, Christopher
Spearing, Nigel


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Sweeney, Walter


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Hawksley, Warren
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Trimble, David


Hunter, Andrew
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Jessel, Toby
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Wilkinson, John


Knapman, Roger
Winnick, David


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)





Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wise, Audrey
Mr. Bob Cryer and



Mr. Austin Mitchell.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Eggar, Tim


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Elletson, Harold


Aitken, Jonathan
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Alexander, Richard
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Alton, David
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Amess, David
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Ancram, Michael
Evennett, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Faber, David


Ashby, David
Fabricant, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Atkins, Robert
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fishburn, Dudley


Baldry, Tony
Forman, Nigel


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forth, Eric


Bates, Michael
Foster, Don (Bath)


Batiste, Spencer
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bellingham, Henry
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Freeman, Roger


Blackburn, Dr John G.
French, Douglas


Booth, Hartley
Gale, Roger


Boswell, Tim
Gallie, Phil


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Garnier, Edward


Bowden, Andrew
Gillan, Cheryl


Bowis, John
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Brandreth, Gyles
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brazier, Julian
Gorst, John


Bright, Graham
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hague, William


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burt, Alistair
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butler, Peter
Hanley, Jeremy


Butterfill, John
Hannam, Sir John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Harris, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carrington, Matthew
Hawkins, Nick


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayes, Jerry


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Heald, Oliver


Clappison, James
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hendry, Charles


Coe, Sebastian
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Hicks, Robert


Congdon, David
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Conway, Derek
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Horam, John


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cormack, Patrick
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Couchman, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Dafis, Cynog
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Day, Stephen
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Devlin, Tim
Jack, Michael


Dicks, Terry
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Dorrell, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Johnston, Sir Russell


Dover, Den
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Duncan, Alan
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Dunn, Bob
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine






Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Robathan, Andrew


Key, Robert
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Kilfedder, Sir James
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Kirkwood, Archy
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sackville, Tom


Knox, David
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Leigh, Edward
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Shersby, Michael


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sims, Roger


Lidington, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lightbown, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Soames, Nicholas


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Speed, Sir Keith


Llwyd, Elfyn
Spencer, Sir Derek


Luff, Peter
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spink, Dr Robert


Lynne, Ms Liz
Spring, Richard


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sproat, Iain


MacKay, Andrew
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Maclean, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Madel, David
Stephen, Michael


Maitland, Lady Olga
Streeter, Gary


Major, Rt Hon John
Sumberg, David


Malone, Gerald
Sykes, John


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marland, Paul
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thomason, Roy


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Merchant, Piers
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Thurnham, Peter


Milligan, Stephen
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mills, Iain
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tredinnick, David


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Trend, Michael


Monro, Sir Hector
Trotter, Neville


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moss, Malcolm
Tyler, Paul


Needham, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nelson, Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wallace, James


Nicholls, Patrick
Waller, Gary


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Ward, John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Norris, Steve
Waterson, Nigel


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Watts, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wells, Bowen


Ottaway, Richard
Welsh, Andrew


Page, Richard
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Paice, James
Whitney, Ray


Patnick, Irvine
Widdecombe, Ann


Patten, Rt Hon John
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wigley, Dafydd


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Willetts, David


Pickles, Eric
Wilshire, David


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wolfson, Mark


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wood, Timothy


Powell, William (Corby)
Yeo, Tim


Rathbone, Tim
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Redwood, John



Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Tellers for the Noes:


Richards, Rod
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Riddick, Graham
Mr. James Arbuthnot.


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Amendment accordingly negatived.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): We come now to amendment No. 6.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. We have just heard a speech by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) about the importance of Parliament as a democratic assembly. It was with some irony that the closure was moved immediately afterwards. It certainly gave rise in some people's minds to the view that perhaps there was some sort of timetable agreed with the Chairmen and Chairwomen of the Committee. I am sure that that is not true—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that that is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order. I am seeking your advice, Mr. Lofthouse, on a matter relating to the amendment which we are about to consider. You will know that education and vocational training were never part of the original treaty of Rome, although the subject was mentioned slightly in the Single Act. However, we are aware that it now becomes very much part of what will be decided in this country, because it is very much part of the Maastricht treaty, which we are currently debating.
The House will be well aware of my interest in health matters, and I have to put this point to you because it affects the quality and standard of health in this country. Will we be obliged to accept diplomas, degrees and qualifications from European universities which are not of a standard equal to our own in this country, if we proceed with this Bill and ratify the treaty?

The First Deputy Chairman: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is quite aware that that cannot possibly be a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The closure was moved at the end of the last debate at a disgracefully early time; it was less than three hours after the debate had started.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is criticising the Chair. If he wishes to do so, he must put down the appropriate motion.

Sir Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. While appreciating the enormous difficulties and pressures that you face in present circumstances, I must draw to your attention the fact that amendment No. 131, which relates to a very important article on page 16 of the treaty, was not referred to in any way during the debate that we have just had.
If you take the trouble to choose an amendment, I wonder whether it is in order for the closure to be moved when that amendment, relating to article 18, title V, which I and some others think is a matter of considerable moment, is not referred to, directly or indirectly, in any way during the debate. Can you give any guidance to the Committee on whether it is in order for the closure to be considered when one of the amendments which you have selected has not been referred to?

The First Deputy Chairman: Of course it is in order, or it would not have been done. It is a matter for the judgment of the Chair.

Mr. Marlow: I seek to help the House, and I seek your assistance in doing so, Mr. Lofthouse. You are probably aware that, from about 6.35 onwards, there was a growing number, outside and inside the Chamber, of payroll Members. They seemed to be surging towards the Chamber at that stage.
We know how you respect the House and its procedures and are anxious to have proper debates. It has occurred to me and to many of my hon. Friends that the Government are desirous of getting two groups of amendments through before 10 o'clock, because they are fearful that, come 10 o'clock, if they want to move the 10 o'clock motion and the Labour party is here and the Irish Members are here, they might not get it. So there is concern—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I have heard sufficient to know that this is not a matter for the Chair. Is it not a common occurrence that the payroll gathers before divisions? It has always happened since I have been in the House, and the hon. Gentleman must be aware of this. That was not a point of order.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: On a further point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Perhaps you can confirm that the Chair does not have to accept the closure when it is moved by the Whips—that there is a discretion in such matters.

The First Deputy Chairman: It is a matter of judgment for the Chair, and there it stands.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I think that I heard you say a moment ago that it is normal practice for hon. Members to be present at the time of a Division. The thing that worries me is how any of those Tory Members, the lap dogs of the Common Market, and everybody else—[Interruption.]—and them as well—manage to know that you would accept a closure.
Of course, all hon. Members will turn up at 9.30 or whatever if it is a 10 o'clock vote. However, if it is an unexpected closure, when the Chair has decided that it is the appropriate moment, how on earth do all those lap dogs know? Since you were not in the Chair when it happened, Mr. Lofthouse, it may well be that there was a nod and a wink in a certain direction from the Whips. If so, it is time that the gang was stopped.

The First Deputy Chairman: The Chair is not aware of where hon. Members are at any given time. The point of order is not a matter for the Chair. I think that I have taken the points of order far enough.

Mr. Roger Knapman: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Recently, I went to the Library to ask how many amendments were grouped together during the passing of the Single European Act, and I was told that it was an average of three or four. This time, however, the number of amendments grouped together is nearly 10. Are you taking that point into account when you consider the length of debates and agree to accept a closure?
If we have an average of 10 amendments, compared to the usual three or four, it will be inevitable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) has pointed out, that on some occasions, as in the previous debate, some amendments are selected but not mentioned at all. I wonder whether you will take that into account in the next two hours and 29 minutes.

The First Deputy Chairman: The Chair takes those matters into account when it makes its decision.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse.

The First Deputy Chairman: Is it a different point of order from the previous one?

Mr. Marlow: Yes, it is a different point of order. You heard the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) express concern about the coincidence of the timing of the vote with the presence of Government Members. I will not say anything about that, because my point of order is totally different. We all have a great deal of respect for the Chair, and we are conscious that we should help the Chair and continue to show respect for it.
If the Government are seen to want to get two votes on two groups of amendments, there might be a concern among hon. Members that they were getting their way at the expense of Back Benchers. That is obviously the Government's intention, because we feel that they would like to start tomorrow on a clean sheet of social policy.

The First Deputy Chairman: I cannot see any point of order there. It appears that the hon. Gentleman is simply making a speech which borders on criticism of the Chair.

Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. In the conduct of business in Committee or in the House, when the Government wish to push such matters through, the normal procedure is to table a guillotine motion. This is no criticism of the Chair, because I accept that you, or whoever is in the Chair, must make a judgment based on the position when a motion of whatever sort is put to you.
However, is it not interesting that what we are seeing is beginning to look very much like a guillotine by motions being put to the Chair? I find that very worrying. I hope that you will take into account the perception and the impression which may be created outside if it does not stop. There is a guillotine working, although it was done without having had a debate on it.

The First Deputy Chairman: There has been no guillotine motion whatever. We will now move to the amendments.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I have taken the points of order far enough.

Mr. Marlow: I spy strangers.

Notice taken, that strangers were present.

Whereupon The FIRST DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143, put the Question, That strangers do withdraw.

Question negatived.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 9, after "II', insert
(except Articles 126 and 127 on page 32 of Cm 1934)'.

The First Deputy Chairman: It may be convenient to consider at the same time the following amendments: No 193, in page 1, line 9, after "II', insert "except Article 3(p)'.

No. 199, in page 1, line 9, after "II' insert
except Article 57(2) on page 13 of Cm 1934'.

No. 212, in page 1, line 9, after "II' insert
except Article 127(2) on page 32 of Cm 1934'.

No. 365, in page 1, line 9, after "II', insert


except Article 57 as referred to in Article G on page 13 of Command Paper number 1934'.

No. 52, in page 1, line 10, after "1992', insert "but not Article 126 in Title II thereof'.

Mr. Lloyd: Despite a delayed start, I begin the debate on vocational training by simply saying that the new competence which would reside in the Community is something to which we attach considerable significance. That is why the Minister will understand that the amendment is a probing one. Perhaps I should not reveal the Opposition's hand too early but simply say that we do not wish to put it to a vote, whatever the intentions of others.
It is widely recognised throughout the Community that vocational training and education lie at the heart of the future, certainly of young people in Europe and more generally in terms of the economic future of the whole Community. I must begin by pointing out that, during the United Kingdom's recent presidency of the Council of Ministers, it is significant that the Government paid so little attention to vocational training that there was only one formal meeting of the Social Affairs Council during the six-month period, and that only one resolution was adopted which had any relevance whatever to vocational training.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I do not want to embarrass the hon. Gentleman, but he will be aware that it is the rule rather than the exception that there should be one Social Affairs Council. During the past five years, which is 10 presidencies, I think that I am right in saying that we have had more than one Social Affairs Council only twice during a presidency.

Mr. Lloyd: If we had a Government who took unemployment and employment issues seriously, it might have been appropriate to start the presidency with a full meeting of the Council of Ministers to discuss what most people in Europe recognise to be the dominant issue facing our economy. There is no argument that there could—and, indeed, should—have been more meetings.
The central point which I was establishing is that, during the six months of the presidency, only one resolution went through which dealt even vaguely with training and associated matters. That was a resolution on the transparency of qualifications.
The six-months presidency certainly did not demonstrate the Government's commitment to development of a Euro-competence in which adult training and education were involved. A European Community publication called "Skill Shortages: A Growing Problem in the Community" made it clear that the Community, the Commission and other institutions attach massive importance to the role of training. They argue:
In general, the level of adult labour-market training activity tends to be higher in Member states where economic productivity is above the Community average and lower in countries with lower productivity.
Most importantly, they pointed out that there seems to be, effectively, a virtuous and vicious circle of economic development. Those countries which fail to train have low productivity and, having low productivity, fail to train. Those countries with high productivity have high levels of training and, consequently, continue to have high levels of productivity.
That is certainly the real history which we can observe between, for example, the United Kingdom and Germany.
Over the years, the Germans have put considerable effort into both increasing productivity and investing in training, whereas in the past 13 years we have had a Government who deride training and want us to move towards a low-wage, low-productivity economy—one with all the worst features of the vicious circle which the European Commission described.
When, as recently as today in the House, the Secretary of State for Employment described training as a burden which the Opposition want to impose on employers, she was very much out of step with the dominant view throughout the rest of western Europe, which sees training as the hub of any attempt to get the economies of western Europe off the ground and into full gear. For those reasons, it is lamentable that we have a Government who are so negative about training.
It is instructive to compare and contrast the records of different countries in the Community. In Britain, the Government's own working party said in a document which fell into my hands that, far from having a training policy, they had a policy which was effectively about massaging unemployment statistics. It said:
It was agreed that there had been a clear policy shift away from National Education and Training Targets and that Training for Work was largely an employment measure rather than a skills training programme.
Even the Government's friends recognise severe and real flaws in the Government's attitude to training.

Mr. George Robertson: Not only them.

Mr. Lloyd: As my hon. Friend says, not only them. Certainly those who have any knowledge or experience of training are disillusioned with the Government's efforts.
The Government's abolition of employment training and employment action, and their move towards the so-called training for work initiative represent a move away from skills training towards simply massaging unemployment figures. Those measures are simply a means of keeping the dole queues as small as possible in the statistical publications.
We know from recent parliamentary answers that the Government have systematically cut the finance available from central Government for training initiatives. Let us compare in constant terms the amount of money which the Government have planned to spend in 1993–94 with the estimated outturn for 1992–93. There has been a significant drop—more than 10 per cent.—in the training budget during that period.
Let us consider the number of participants in schemes such as employment training. The Government have cut the cost of those schemes which might suggest that more people could be accommodated. The reverse has happened. In 1989–90, 210,000 people were put through employment training schemes. The Government estimate that there will be as few as 150,000 people on the training for work scheme in 1993–94.
Those training schemes are designed for the long-term unemployed, yet unemployment has shot up dramatically and cruelly. The Government's response has been to cut the amount of money available for those schemes and to cut the number of places, so that fewer people have the opportunity to receive that type of training.

Mr. Cash: I do not particularly like making this point often, but I am astonished as I look across the Chamber to see that the hon. Gentleman is speaking to literally two other members of his party on a matter which affects


policy on education and vocational training for the whole of the rest of Europe, as well as for the United Kingdom. I wonder whether he could encourage some of his hon. Friends to come along and at least listen to his pearls of wisdom.

Mr. Lloyd: You will understand, Mr. Lofthouse, that at this stage in the proceedings I would find it difficult to go out and perform the task that the hon. Gentleman invites me to perform. Even as I gaze at the Benches opposite, it is clear that, unfortunately, the debate has not attracted many listeners. That may be my fault. We shall see whether the numbers flood in later when the hon. Gentleman has an opportunity to speak.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the monumental and excessive windbaggery of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) may have allowed word to get out from the Chamber that there is something marginally tedious about our proceedings on the Bill?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman makes his point in admirable style. The issue of training is vital to the future of Britain. The number of Members present certainly does not reflect the importance of training to the nation.

Mr. Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way on a relevant point. It is nothing to do with windbaggery or whether many Members are present on the Opposition or even the Government Benches. Under the treaty of Rome, education and training were not within the remit of the Commission of the European Community. Under the Maastricht treaty, education and training become very much part of the remit of the Commission. One of the Commissioners has recently said that he wants to become involved in education and training policy. The Commission will use money to do that.
Does the hon. Gentleman, who is leading for the Opposition in this debate, believe that the European Commission is better able to direct funds for education and training in Britain than the Westminster Parliament through the Department of Education and the Department of Employment? If he does, where will the money come from unless we pay a much heavier account to the European Community and allocate much greater resources to it, depriving the United Kingdom Government of funds which they can currently spend, I hope, from a position of better knowledge than the EC?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. He is an opponent of long standing of most things that come out of Brussels, so at least he is consistent. However, his Government introduced the Single European Act and moved us towards the single market. Those of us who have had doubts about some areas of Europe's competence must also accept that there is no future for regions such as that which I represent if development of labour market activities does not take place in parallel with single market activities.
It is obvious to me that there is a paramount need for consistency in levels of training. I hope to demonstrate to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that the British Government, with their appalling record on training,

stand in poor comparison with most of the rest of western Europe. To that extent, I would cheerfully exchange the levels of training which are provided in Britain for those, for example, in Germany or France. I look to the European Community to kick-start the British Government into doing things which they alone are unwilling to do. That is the answer to the nub of the question which the hon. Gentleman puts to me.

Mr. Winterton: I am grateful for the constructive response which the hon. Gentleman has made to the points that I put to him, but he referred to Germany. I am sure that he will admit that the system of education and training in Germany has nothing to do with the treaty of Rome or the European Community. Historically, Germany has had a different education and training system from ours. I like Germany's technical education, which has stood Germany in good stead, but surely that has nothing to do with the European Community. If we had wanted to copy Germany, we could have done so many years ago, long before the European Community came into being.

Mr. Lloyd: The relevance of Germany's educational philosophy to the European Community is probably about the same as that of the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the debate. I suspect that he makes them for a different purpose, but I shall treat his comments seriously, because, he raises a valid point.
In Germany, there is an education and training culture, something which I fear has slipped enormously in Britain in recent years. We must redevelop it. I do not have confidence in the Government to achieve that. It cannot be delayed. We are losing the training race almost daily. We must begin to make some efforts to reinvest in training. As I said, I look to the Commission to provide a kick-start in the process.
If hon. Members will forgive me, I shall make some progress in the substantive points that I wish to make in the relatively small amount of time that the Committee will make available this evening.

Mr. Winterton: Why? How do you know?

Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman knows something that we do not.

Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lloyd: No, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I have given way several times.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) said from a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) seems to know something that we do not know. Do you know it? Is it that the debate will not take long tonight?

The First Deputy Chairman: I do not know anything about it and that is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Lloyd: If you do not know, Mr. Lofthouse, I can place it on the record that I am in even greater ignorance, although the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) may choose not to believe me.
By common consent, the Government have lost their way on training. There have been significant cuts in the numbers of trainees and the quantity of funding for Government-led schemes. Employment training is at the


heart of the Government's training philosophy, but there has been a significant cut in the amount of finance, in constant terms, available to each trainee. For example, the real-terms value in 1992 constant pounds of the cost of an employment training course in 1989–90 was £6,504. By 1992–93, it had dropped to £6,074, which is a significant cut in real terms of about 10 per cent.
One of the real tragedies is that, while the Government have exhorted the private sector to train, they have listened with deaf ears because they have been beset with the problems caused by their very own recession. We know that the Department of Employment's Employment Gazette recently let the cat out of the bag with an analysis which showed that in Britain most people on employment and youth training schemes do not believe that they are receiving significant amounts of job-related training.
However, the amount of money made available by the private sector fell significantly, as did volumes of trainees. While it is true that things are a little better than they were in the early 1980s, the 3 million employees of working age in Britain who receive training are a far cry from the levels of training required for a labour force of about 20 million. We know that the Government and the private sector are failing the nation.
During the election, the Government made great play of the fact that the Opposition wanted to introduce a training levy, which would have kick-started the private sector into providing the sort of training that is needed. The Government said that that would be a burden on industry, would add to industrial costs and would wreck industry and shed jobs, but such an idea is viewed as ridiculous throughout the rest of Europe, where they prefer a virtuous cycle, in which high-quality training leads to high productivity and vice versa.
For example, in the year before last, more than 600,000 people used the vocational training places made available under Germany's dual system and 70 per cent. completed their courses. It is significant that 30 per cent. of the entrants were already educated to A-level standard.
The German concept of training, within the dual system, is seen to be important, as it establishes the training culture that allows such high productivity. German productivity is about 60 per cent. higher than in Britain, and wage levels are about 70 per cent. higher, and the two are interrelated. Britain has a low-wage, low-cost economy. Germany has a high-wage, high-productivity economy, which is in the interests of the German nation and its people.
The situation in France is different, but it is at least similar to that in Germany, in that, as long ago as the early 1970s, the French were struck by their lack of a training culture. I do not know whether I am allowed to mention Jacques Delors—the bête noir of many Conservative Members—who introduced a legal obligation for employers to participate in vocational training. When the scheme was introduced it required each employer to spend 0.9 per cent. of the wage bill on training. That figure has been increased to 1.2 per cent., but most employers spend considerably in excess of that amount, and some large companies spend up to 10 per cent. of the wages bill on training. In doing so, they are investing in the future of France and French industry.

Sir Richard Body: The hon. Gentleman has referred to Germany, and I do not doubt his figures, as I know them to be accurate, but does he

agree that some European countries are not embarking on comparable training schemes, and that one of the dangers of the article is that money will go from northern Europe—and this country—to enable southern European countries to embark on ambitious vocational training schemes which will compare with our own? That will make those countries more competitive in the new industries that they are developing, which could cause great dangers to our economy, especially if the Community continues to have a low-growth economy.

Mr. Lloyd: The reality is that all Europe will be dragged down by the concept of a low-wage, low-skill economy, which periodically chooses to shed labour, as has happened throughout most of western Europe—in the Community countries and beyond—in recent years. There is no future for the Community as a low-wage economy, and the whole Community must accept that. Social tensions have already been caused by mass unemployment in France, Germany and Italy. Unemployment has caused problems in Britain—for example, in my constituency, where a young boy was shot and killed recently.
I cannot accept a scenario in Britain or in the Community in which we accept the concept of a potentially redundant army of labour, which can be brought in or dispensed with at will—a scenario in which pockets of long-term unemployment become virtually permanent, and in which no hope is given because the Government have provided Mickey Mouse training schemes. We must develop a wider approach. I look to the Community to develop a coherent training philosophy, so that it becomes a way of life throughout Europe.
The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) asked whether I did not fear that we would end up having to prop up standards in Portugal. It may surprise him to learn that Portugal is already ahead of Britain in many aspects of training. Britain is third from bottom in the number of 16 to 18-year-olds who participate in education, and Portugal is one of the countries ahead of us. The days when Britain could look loftily down on the Mediterranean countries as despised nations are gone. The position has shifted during my lifetime, and perhaps a different generation has to account for that. The simple reality is that the Portuguese will not look to Britain for lessons on training.
The amount that various European countries spend on training is also significant. Germany is not the only country to spend more than Britain, as Ireland also does do. Ireland has long been regarded as an alternative labour market for the British economy. I come from a part of Britain where Irish people have lived for many years, and I know that they have been viewed as an alternative labour force in boom times, and that they have been expendable during recessions. It is especially significant that Ireland is spending more than Britain on domestic training, even though it has tremendous problems of labour emigration.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that one makes low-skilled people more productive by investing more capital in equipment and machinery, rather than by trying to give them additional training? Throughout the Pacific rim, where our main competitors come from, wages and skill levels are relatively low, but those countries are rapidly improving.
That is being done within the work process, without complicated Government training schemes, and we should aim to do the same here—never mind about Europe.
That is the way in which skills are passed on—by building on the shoulders of the former generation. The plans envisaged in the Maastricht treaty simply will not work. We cannot separate ourselves from that other part of the world, which contains 90 per cent. of the population, while Europe only has one tenth.

Mr. Lloyd: If that is the hon. Lady's view of the world, I find it almost immeasurably sad. Not only is she technically wrong; the flaws in her argument are precisely the kind that lead to the introduction of stupid policies such as those that the country has experienced for the past 13 years.
The hon. Lady suggested that countries on the Pacific rim considered education and training unimportant. Countries such as Taiwan and Singapore—which in my lifetime have been seen as the low-wage, low-skill nations described by the hon. Lady—are now investing a fantastic amount of national effort in the education and training of their young people: they are doing far more than this country in that respect.
The idea that such countries accept peripheralisation is born of an era that is rapidly disappearing. Suppose we told the Japanese that they should return to the days when they competed on the basis of volume rather than quality! The hon. Lady also mentioned the Koreans; they too are spending a considerable amount on training. She may be surprised if she looks at the comparative figures.
8 pm
The really sad aspect, however is this. The fact that the hon. Lady rests her case on bogus evidence suggests that she presses Ministers to provide bad training in this country. That is where the tragedy lies, and that is the reason for the anti-education, anti-training culture that has existed here for so many years. I believe that the Minister knows something about language training. In schools driven by the national curriculum—my children attend such schools—pupils are forced at the age of 13 to confine themselves to the study of a single foreign language, because of the needs of the curriculum. It is ridiculous, and atrocious, that they should be denied access to foreign languages. We are handicapping our young people: in France and Germany, for instance, that simply could not happen nowadays. The current state of affairs is almost uniformly barren; the Government's record bears no comparison with that of other western European countries.
As I told the Minister earlier, these are probing amendments, but we want him to respond in detail to our questions about why Britain's vocational training record is so bad. Under the treaty, vocational training and education will be governed by the terms of qualified majority voting; Britain—the anti-intellectual, anti-education, anti-training country that it has become—will no longer be able to hold to ransom not only the rest of Europe, but the British people themselves.
For those reasons, many people welcome this part of the treaty.

Sir Richard Body: I hope that the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) will not mind my saying that I, for

one—and, I am sure, every other Conservative Member—found his speech disappointing. I do not mean that personally; no doubt the hon. Gentleman was entirely sincere. I had hoped, however, that he would probe this part of the treaty more fully and carefully, given the immense implications that it could have for millions of people in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Gentleman quoted a number of statistics. As I said earlier, I do not doubt those statistics, but the hon. Gentleman would surely agree that they came from the public sector. They excluded the many schemes in this country—and, indeed, in the countries listed by the hon. Gentleman—which are privately funded by business enterprises. Those of us with some experience of such schemes would say that, more often than not, they are more effective and do more to strengthen our economy than publicly funded schemes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) referred to the Pacific basin. In numerous countries in that area which are now booming, effective training in the private sector provides the main body of recruitment. Only a week or two ago, I met a number of business men in my constituency who said that they deplored Government-funded schemes and that if they could only have half as much money for training, they would ensure that it was more cost-effective and more in line with the needs of industry. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay: we should support private-sector schemes rather than those funded by the Government.
This article will enable the Community to spend a great deal of money which is, in the main, obtained from the northern European countries—the principal contributors to European funds. We are well aware how some southern European countries—especially Spain—want the money to be spent. We know what Mr. Gonzales has been saying about cohesion funds; we know that he will be difficult, over and over again.

Mr. Marlow: Yet again, my hon. Friend has drawn the House's attention to the way in which all these bits and pieces combine to produce another slush fund, which the Commission will be able to use. All right—the Government are not heavily committed, but money will be available—and majority voting will be possible. The fund will not deal with the content of educational programmes, but to an extent it will enable the manipulation of such programmes in a European direction, which some may want and others may not. It will also constitute a slush fund to be used in what Europeans call the regions—Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. We know what they want to do with the regions; they want to divide and rule. Will my hon. Friend deal with some of those fundamental issues?

Sir Richard Body: I will indeed. My hon. Friend, like me, represents a corner of England. I use the word "England" deliberately: those of us who represent English constituencies are aware that we do not get much out of the slush funds.
In an earlier debate, it was pointed out that cultural expenditure would be used for enticement purposes—to enhance the popularity of Wales, or other parts of the Community. There is plenty of evidence that a good deal has been spent in Wales—and whenever money is spent there, the famous flags with stars on a blue background is


there to show that the money came from the European Community, although only a tiny fraction may have come from that source.

Mr. Cryer: Under article 126,
Community action shall be aimed at … developing the European dimension in education".
That really means the European Community dimension. Taxpayers' money is being used to mount a propaganda drive to promote the claimed virtues of the Community. The adoption of the word "European", which belongs to a continent rather than to a political or economic organisation, illustrates the arrogance of the organisation which is promoting its ideas. This will be not education, but propaganda.

Sir Richard Body: That applies to all 12 countries—to western Europe as a whole, and it is the overriding argument against the Maastricht treaty: the treaty will make it much more difficult for the Scandinavian countries, the alpine countries, the countries of eastern Europe—and, in due course, those further east in the old Soviet Union—to be part of a European Community or Commonwealth. My dream is a European Community which allows all Europe to take part in common policies which are in the interests of individual countries.

Mr. Marlow: I apologise for intervening, but this is probably one of our more important debates on the treaty. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and my hon. Friend spoke about the money that will be in the hands of the Commission and how it could be used.
Let me draw my hon. Friend's attention to a powerful revelation that we had today. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) is no fool. She is a very intelligent lady. She referred to things that have been done in her constituency with Community money. As we know, she is a fervent European. One of the reasons why she is in favour of Europe is that she perceives that these good things have dropped out of heaven from the European Community as if the European Community has a factory where it manufactures cash and with its generosity provides cash to her constituents. If we accept the article as it is at the moment, rather than take it out, there will be more money for more Eurocrats to spend in more constituencies so that more people can be seduced by the slush funds.

Sir Richard Body: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We have almost forgotten green shield stamps. The money that goes back to Wales can be likened to green shield stamps. The people of Britain, including the people of Wales, contribute a great deal more than what is coming back. I am sorry that the hon. Lady, who is not in her place, has allowed herself to be deceived by payments out of what my hon. Friend calls the slush funds.

Mr. David Harris: Slush funds?

Sir Richard Body: I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) is with us. He has been travelling to Strasbourg and he knows nothing whatever about slush funds. He is always totally innocent of anything of that nature, as indeed are most of those involved in Europe. It is only a minority who dip their fingers into slush funds.
We are not criticising European Parliamentarians. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) was speaking about the opportunities which

would be created by a further slush fund. We have debated the cultural slush fund and now we are discussing further funds to be allocated by majority voting, as the Council of Ministers may prescribe on the recommendation of the Commission as the article specifies.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I am very disturbed to find on the Bench here an envelope which says, "Can you keep going until 10 pm? If so, they surely cannot close." You were in the Chair last night when there were allegations of collusion. Surely there cannot be collusion between my hon. Friends. I cannot begin to think who might have written this diabolical note—

Mr. James Cran: Let me see the handwriting.

Mr. Harris: I do not know about that. It seems to me that there are some guilty people. It cannot be right that hon. Members are being egged on to filibuster to keep the debate going until 10 o'clock at night. Can you give your ruling on that?

The First Deputy Chairman: It is not a matter for the Chair what notes are passed.

Mr. Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I think that someone suggested that the only possible provenance of that dreadful piece of paper could be someone from the Whips Office as all my hon. Friends who take a similar view—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I have just given a ruling that it is not a matter for the Chair what notes are passed. Sir Richard Body.

Sir Richard Body: rose—

Mr. Bill Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I understand that we are attempting to implement article 126 this evening, but we have just given Scottish universities a fund to look after when that used to be a United Kingdom responsibility. As we have guarded our separate education system in Scotland, is it not nonsense to be faced with a proposal such as article 126?

Sir Richard Body: I am sure that my hon. Friend realises that Scotland will be homogenised by what we are discussing tonight. As a mere Englishman, I concede that Scottish education is of the highest standard—much higher than that in England. Whether it will continue to be so is another matter. I hope that my hon. Friend will have the opportunity to put in a word for Scottish education, to prevent it from being contaminated—if that is not too unkind a word—by anything which may emerge out of Brussels.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we in Northern Ireland should pay particular attention to what is happening, as the more money that goes into the slush fund directly from the United Kingdom to southern Ireland threatens the development of our own education and training services in Northern Ireland?

Sir Richard Body: The hon. Gentleman may well be right that there are moves that he knows only too well, if I may coin an awful word, to desectorise Northern Ireland education and require pupils to go to the same schools, whatever their background. It may well be that the


European Community will use what they call incentive money to give money to such schools. That may or may not be a good proposal, but it is surely for Great Britain and particularly for the people of Northern Ireland to decide whether they want their education policy to take that direction. It should not be a matter for Brussels and, above all, it should not be a matter for majority vote in the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) made a wise intervention, but there may be people in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland who believe that they would do better through the Council regions and through the slush fund money for education. However, the whole system is based on the fact that we make a net contribution to the Community budget of £2,500 million a year which by grace of this treaty will increase to £3,000 million a year. If that were not passed to Europe as part of the mega-slush fund, we would have more of our own money to spend in Northern Ireland, Wales, and Scotland on culture and education in all parts of our country, but because of the structure and status that we have at the moment it goes to Europe, it goes to Brussels and it gets the stamp of Mr. Delors: it gets a European flag and we all have to bless the great and the good in Brussels.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Some of the interventions are rather lengthy speeches. Sir Richard Body.

Sir Richard Body: It is much worse than my hon. Friend describes when it comes to vocational training. This where the hon. Member for Stretford is mistaken. We shall be required to put a large sum of money into Community funds to enable vocational training to take place. We can try to ensure that there is—I hate to use the tired old phrase—a level playing field throughout the Community and equal opportunities for such training. Although the hon. Member for Stretford disputed this, we know that vocational training is not so advanced in southern Europe as in northern Europe, so there is bound to be a diversion of funds from the north to the south, to Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece.

Mr. Beggs: And southern Ireland.

Sir Richard Body: Indeed, although plenty of money is already going there—whether it can collar any more under the scheme, I do not know. At all events, there will be a massive transfer of funds to southern Europe from the taxpayers of northern Europe, to give the inhabitants of the south vocational schemes as good as those in the north.

Mr. Budgen: One of the most exciting and useful aspects of all this is the way in which the Community represents a gathering of friends and colleagues—of Heads of State. It is such a pleasant thing to see the friendship between politicians as they extract money from their taxpayers and hand it over to their friends, the other politicians, so that the latter may bribe their respective electorates. This is always described in each country as a great triumph for its national self-interest. It would be churlish if we did not recognise the process and express our admiration for it.

Sir Richard Body: My hon. Friend is right. We must admire it, but there comes a time when we should question it.

Mr. Budgen: If my hon. Friend starts questioning it, he will soon find himself in the kind of difficulties that I faced recently, when the Whips Office started ringing up my chairman and suggested that it was not the role of a Back Bencher to question anything that the Government were doing or to cause as much trouble as possible. I warn my hon. Friend against that line of action. We are, after all, here to rubber-stamp the Government's actions—and the most important thing that we can do is to express our admiration for everything that the Government have done.
I fear that my hon. Friend will come to regret his impertinence. He should bear in mind the authoritarian behaviour of the Whips, as shown by their moving the closure and preventing many of our hon. Friends from expressing their admiration for the Government. Most of us feel an extreme affection for my hon. Friend and hope that he will not jeopardise his career by being so stupid as to express criticism of the treaty or of the Government. To do that would be to undermine loyalty to the Government—a crime of which I am sure he would not want to be found guilty.

Sir Richard Body: I will try to take that advice. The only ambition I have ever had in this House was to work in the office of the Patronage Secretary. I am old-fashioned enough still to call the Chief Whip that. I imagined that I would learn a lot there. I see on the Front Bench the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who was once in the Patronage Secretary's office and who had me to deal with among his flock. I am sure that he will confirm that I never questioned anything and sought always to do his bidding.
If the hon. Member for Stretford was truly expressing the policy of the Labour party and if, as a result, unemployment rises, he and the rest of his colleagues will have a great deal to answer for at the next election. We cannot be certain that the European Community will enjoy a high growth rate from now on. The smaller countries of Europe outside the European Community have more favourable growth rates at the moment. Germany is in difficulties with a declining growth rate. The German Government are under intense pressure over their revenue and monetary policies—

Mrs. Gorman: I should very much welcome my hon. Friend's wisdom and advice, as I know that he is a great repository of knowledge. Is it not true that in Germany young people are trained on the job? At 16 they take up training courses in firms—bakers, butchers or plumbers—where they are taught the skills by those who have them and who can pass them on without the need for any slush funds or Government intervention. Is it not also true that those young people, knowing the value of their training, do not expect to be paid as much as adults while being trained? They are paid the sort of money that the Labour party would describe as appropriate to sweated labour or pin money. In fact, the process is part of a tradition that my hon. Friend and I would like restored to this country so that we can avoid the sort of mega-schemes envisaged


under Maastricht, which would remove the training function from the people who know what needs to be taught.

Sir Richard Body: Of course my hon. Friend must be right. As she was speaking, I remembered the old adage that those who can, do, and those who cannot, teach. I fear that some professional full-time vocational training teachers are those who have not done well in the occupation that they originally chose. That certainly applies to the building and engineering industries. Those who are good at those jobs go into firms and prosper; those who are not so good find themselves out of work and having to take up employment providing some form of vocational training.

Mr. Marlow: The beginning of this article speaks of the Community contributing to the development of quality education. If the Community is to contribute to the development of education, even though it does not have the right to change laws in this area by means of directives, it is implied that the Community will be involved in everything at an early stage—for instance, in the geography and history syllabuses. The involvement will be indirect, but it will be effected by means of incentives, slush funds, and so on. Is my hon. Friend worried about that?
The article also mentions quality. My hon. Friend is a far greater expert on the English language than I am. What is meant by quality?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I have recently drawn the attention of the House to the length of interventions. Experienced hon. Members should not need to keep being reminded by the Chair about this. They are making speeches, not interventions, and I shall use my office to enable the debate to take place within the rules of the House. I will not allow the near-abuse of our procedures.

Sir Richard Body: I will, if I may, follow up what my hon. Friend said about quality education. I am troubled by that term. My mind goes back to the time many years ago when I began breeding pigs and contacted various butchers. I remember one outlet kept talking about quality meat. I realised that the person involved was not really looking for quality meat, but for meat that was cheap and nasty. I have no doubt that the education of which we are speaking will not be cheap, even though it may be nasty.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: My hon. Friend is talking about quality meat. As we are talking about education, will he confirm that the word "quality" is a noun and not an adjective, so there cannot be anything called quality education? It is difficult to see how one can have a common view of what Germany did to Poland, Germany did to France, or Russia did to Poland as a common quality educational instruction.

Sir Richard Body: As ever, my hon. and learned Friend is right. It is disturbing to find the word "quality" in any treaty and I suspect that this is its first appearance. To apply it to education is inappropriate and I would not rely on any Commissioners or group of officials in Brussels to decide quality in our terms.

Mr. Budgen: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reflections on a difficult adjective.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) said that it was a noun.

Mr. Budgen: I apologise—of course it is a noun. If I were subject to overall supervisory care by some European gauleiter, I should probably have a more normal way of speaking, though it might be less interesting.
I am pleased to see that the Chairman has returned, as I wish to support the First Deputy Chairman in his observations to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) to the effect that a large number of Conservative Members wished to take part in the debate. My hon. Friend—

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Member has been on his feet since I entered the Chamber, which means that he has made an excessively long intervention. He is clearly preventing other hon. Members from making their speeches.

Mr. Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I was merely endeavouring to put a point to my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body). So far as I could see, you had only just come into the Chamber, and I respectfully suggest that I detected—

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Budgen: —a degree of prejudice.

The Chairman: Order. I note that the hon. Member was called earlier. I produced the list earlier in the day and put him on it, so I do not know what sort of prejudice he thinks may exist. I remind him and all hon. Members that interventions should be short. I came through the doors into the Chamber well over a minute ago, and the hon. Member was already in full flight. I suspect that he has been a member of other Committees. He should know that interventions must be short and to the point.

Sir Richard Body: I shall endeavour to keep my remarks short, but I remind the Committee that I have been endeavouring to speak for some time and that this is the first time that I have spoken in this Parliament. One endeavours to get in and it sometimes happens that, having got in, one feels disinclined to sit down again.

Mrs. Gorman: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I seek clarification. Are you aware that in a debate in which, say, only one or two Conservative Members are called, it is imperative that we try to make our points through rather more lengthy interventions than we would otherwise make, as otherwise we would never speak at all?

The Chairman: The hon. Lady might argue that an intervention is as long as it is short. I must obey the rules of the House. I do not create them. They have been created by the House over the centuries. "Erskine May" says that an intervention should be short and to a single point, so that the hon. Member who is intervened upon can respond. I have been listening to all the interventions for the last hour. Few of them have been short or to the point.

Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I seek your guidance. Would you give an indication of the meaning of "short"?

The Chairman: It is my judgment.

Sir Richard Body: I appreciate that interventions must be short, and clearly, a short intervention makes it easier for the person intervened upon to deal with the intervention. But I remind you, Mr. Morris, that there have been a number of closure motions.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is an experienced parliamentarian. I learned and listened at his feet in these cloisters. He knows that the subject of closure motions is not part of the amendments before the Committee. Will he please return to the subject under discussion?

Sir Richard Body: Indeed, and I return to what the hon. Member for Stretford said about vocational schemes.

Mr. Marlow: I promise that this will be a short intervention. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) pointed out that "quality" was a noun and not an adjective. The text of the article refers to "quality education." There is no such thing as quality in that it is good or bad or high or low quality. What are we supposed to deduce from an article in a treaty which is ungrammatical and undefined? How are we to evaluate the treaty in those circumstances?

Sir Richard Body: That is an important point and I hope that when the Minister replies—which I hope will not be immediately I resume my seat, although I fear, on past performance, that that may be the case—he will deal with it. Presumably at Maastricht the word was considered carefully by whoever was then representing Her Majesty's Government. That person no doubt queried the necessity for using the word "quality" and was satisfied, after receiving certain assurances, that it had a particular meaning and purpose.
If education is not about quality, it should not be education at all, so the word is surplus. Even so, having been inserted in that way, it raises a degree of suspicion. We must be told why it has been inserted in the provision.
The hon. Member for Stretford denigrated the Government's record in matters of vocational training. His speech almost mirrored that of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), who equally denigrated the Government's record.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of what he is saying. I think he meant to say "qualitated" rather than "denigrated."

Sir Richard Body: I used the word "denigrated" and I suppose that if one really probed the meaning of it, it might have some racial undertone. I did not mean it in that way. I hope I am not being unfair in saying that the hon. Gentleman denigrated the Government's record. He was sharply critical of the Government's programme of vocational training. He alleged that Britain was spending much less than Germany and other countries on it and he called for more to be spent. No doubt the Minister will supply some figures.
I do not think that the figures supplied by the Opposition spokesman included money spent in this country by the private sector. That money has been increasing and should be included. It may be almost impossible to quantify because much training is undertaken by small firms, but it should be possible to provide a guestimate. If that were put into the equation, it

would be seen that total spending on vocational training in this country compares well with the amount spent by our Community competitors.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend speaks about the potential threat to the private sector of what is almost a Community incentive policy for education. I hope to raise that in my speech. Paragraph 2 of article 126 refers to
developing the European dimension in education,".
Does that mean that there will be a European dimension to history and geography? What impact would there be on the understanding of British history and British geography if the Commissioners got to work through the slush fund?

Sir Richard Body: My hon. Friend raises two issues, the first of which is the threat to existing vocational training schemes. If the Community embarks on major schemes for such training which are more or less uniform throughout the Community, there will be two results. First, the Government will be less than enthusiastic about spending money on vocational training because they will be able to obtain funds from the Community. I know how the Treasury operates, and I know that the Chief Secretary or one of his assistants will reduce his vocational training estimate for the Department of Employment. In that respect the availability of Community money will be a disadvantage. The other threat is much more real. More money from the Community will lead to firms in this country deciding not to spend money on schemes they prefer when, with a bit of a push, they can get money from the Community.

Mr. Cryer: Firms proposing to do that should be warned that Common Market funds can be arbitrarily cut. When I was the EC member for Sheffield, a firm called Tyzack employed some apprentices who were partly supported by money from the EC social fund. The EC Commissioner demanded that they should be given computer training different from the computer training that they were receiving. Since such training could not be provided, the money was stopped. The reason for the dodge was that Italy had complained to the Italian Commissioner that the United Kingdom had been receiving too much money and that the distribution was unfair. That is precisely what happened in the case of a perfectly good training scheme. However, the apprentices were kept on and continued to train because Sheffield council paid Tyzack to keep them employed.

Sir Richard Body: I hope that the Minister has noted that and will deal with it, because it is the sort of thing that might happen if the power moves from here to Brussels. At least at the moment we can seek funds. We may not always be successful in dealing with European matters and the machinations of the Patronage Secretary's office, but at least we can raise issues in Adjourning debates. I suspect that, when the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was in the European Parliament, he had fewer opportunities to articulate his case than he has here. The hon. Gentleman's reference to Sheffield brings to mind another training scheme.
I am interested in promoting schemes for certain kinds of farming. One of our universities has a great reputation in agriculture, but it was unable to get money for a particular kind of farming in this country. A deputation went to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food


for funding but was unable to get it. However, Sheffield polytechnic approached Brussels and I understand that it was successful in obtaining money.

The Chairman: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman speaking about vocational training?

Sir Richard Body: Yes. Farming is indeed a vocation. It is a most unprofitable occupation, as my hon. Friends will confirm.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have to do a little better than that. Everything is a vocation. Was the specific grant for vocational training? If it was not, perhaps the hon. Gentleman could use a different example.

Sir Richard Body: I think that I am on a good point, and it came to mind when the hon. Member for Bradford, South intervened. With due respect to Sheffield polytechnic, it had no expertise in this area and sought advice from me about where to obtain it, but it did that after obtaining an assurance from Brussels about money. Before allocating money for something of this kind, one would have thought that Brussels would seek out—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman speaks about "something of this kind", but that is not vocational training. I am here to serve the Committee. The amendments are fairly tightly drawn and we are debating vocational training. In his heart, the hon. Gentleman knows whether the advice that he offered related to vocational training. If it did, his remarks are in order: if it did not, he should not continue that line of argument.

Sir Richard Body: I shall move on, but I should have thought that training in a particular form of farming was vocational.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I should like to ask my hon. Friend about the mention in the treaty of what is called the "European dimension in education". What will be the European dimension in education of the Franco-Prussian war, the invasion of France by Germany, Poland's experience over 400 years, the concentration camps and the second world war?

The Chairman: Order.

Sir Richard Body: My hon. and learned Friend poses a fundamental question. I should prefer the whole issue to be left to the Council of Europe, but I shall not digress. If Monnet could hear our debate, he would be intrigued. Directly in reply to what my hon. Friend has said, in 1988 at a gathering to commemorate the work of Mr. Monnet as founder of the Community—I suppose that we would not be having this debate were it not for Monnet—Mr. Regis Debray, the former French prime minister, said that shortly before Mr. Monnet died he said that, had he been starting again, he would have sought to found the Community not on economics but on culture and education.
I think that that probably answers the question posed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir Nicholas Fairbairn) because Mr. Monnet was all for—I do not want to use this ugly word—homogenising. He believed, in all good faith and with total sincerity, that the conflicts of Europe would never come to

an end unless we were tending to think alike and to share the same values and therefore to share the same culture and to be educated in much the same way.
Mr. Monnet would have been appalled at the kind of history lessons that I and perhaps my hon. and learned Friend had when we heard about Waterloo, Trafalgar and matters of that kind. He would have preferred education to be European education, written objectively and treated impartially in the classroom. That meeting to commemorate the work of Monnet was very significant. Monnet might well have been right to give that opinion in those last few weeks of his life if he was seeking to create a superstate out of western Europe.
Of course we are going to have a European dimension for history, literature, and perhaps geography and other subjects, if we allow this part of the treaty to proceed and to be part of a common education policy. I dare say that my hon. Friend the Minister, when he replies, will say that there is no such intention because there is to be subsidiarity. I can almost see him making that speech now. My hon. Friend will realise already that this article uses the term "majority voting".

Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith: In article 126, in subparagraph 4, invoking 189b, and in article 127, under subparagraph 4, invoking 189c, both give the Commission a strong position to bring forward to the Council a rule on quantitative majority voting. Would my hon. Friend like to comment on the importance of that in relation to these matters?

Sir Richard Body: I should have thought that anyone concerned about educational standards would be concerned about that—including, of course, the Minister when he replies. We have been arguing for the last few years about a national curriculum and about standards, and arousing the ire of many schoolteachers on the subject. There is a hornets' nest in certain schools. Yet having gone through all that, we are putting our head into a noose and making our Minister, when he goes to the Council of Ministers, very vulnerable.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Is one to understand that the European dimension will be to say that the first and second world wars and the battle of Waterloo were draws? May I ask my hon. Friend to interpret the treaty which speaks of the increasing dimension of distance education? I have not had much education and I am very close to my hon. Friend in all ways, but I do not understand why a noun is again being used instead of an adjective in an educational paragraph. What is distance education? Does it mean that the teacher is so scared of his pupils that he lives in the Isle of Wight and has to shout?

The Chairman: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly in order in asking what is distance education, but he must allow the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor to respond.

Sir Richard Body: My hon. and learned Friend should not be surprised by the drafting of this. Has it not been drafted by one of his fellow poets? Hardly a phrase, certainly not a whole sentence, nor any part of the treaty, can be described as being in decent literary English.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education(Mr. Tim Boswell): Perhaps I can assist the House by saying that my understanding of


distance education and distance learning, allowing for the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) and his aversion to the use of nouns as adjectives, is that it is learning or education done at a distance, rather than being conveyed on a personal basis across the classroom. It is teaching which may be delivered, or learning received, by means of a number of modern techniques, audio-visual cassettes, written material sent through the post, which is particularly characterised in this country by the Open university and done very well.

Sir Richard Body: I always keep my distance from anyone who is teaching, for very good reasons. I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I had assumed that that was the meaning of this. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross has touched on an important point about this European dimension. I can see, as the whole House can surely see now, that we shall have large parts of our history books and syllabuses reconsidered with incentive money. That is the term used. It was hinted at in particular by the Commissioner for education when he went to Madrid. I think that it was last November when he talked about how important it was to have a common system of education for Europe and said that the Maastricht treaty would enable that to come about, so I am sure that the fear expressed by my hon. and learned Friend is right.

Mr. Marlow: I have many weaknesses and one of them is that I am a great patriot and populist and I am keen on England and English history. There are great victories in English history like Crecy, Agincourt, Poitiers which we talked about at school. If one looks at a French map one will not find those battlefields. Is it likely that under the provisions of this article future generations of our children, when they look at history maps in English history lessons, or European history lessons as they will be, will not find Crecy, Agincourt and Poitiers? They will not be on the map or be talked about. They will not be anything. There may be other aspects of English history where the same things may happen.

Sir Richard Body: No doubt that will be the case. Many people, including some hon. Members, look forward to the day when our schools no longer teach such subjects and when our history is "more objective", as they say. Many in the teaching profession look forward to that day.

Mr. Cryer: Does not this exchange show the sloppy drafting of the treaty? The European dimension can mean little or it can mean a lot. Unlike the drafting of Government legislation and delegated legislation, there is no area that defines the words that are used—hence the term European, which I assume refers to the Community but could equally apply to the whole of Europe. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is dangerous language to accept in a binding treaty, because once it has been established it is as long as a piece of string to anybody who wants to interpret it?

Sir Richard Body: The hon. Gentleman is right to use the word "dangerous". I use the word "arrogant". It is appalling arrogance to attribute to 12 countries the description "Europe", but that appears over and again in the Maastricht treaty. One or two of my hon. Friends are

enthusiastic about the treaty, although I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) beside me, who is pretty pragmatically enthusiastic about it all.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Intelligently.

Sir Richard Body: Intelligently, yes.

9 pm

Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend will be aware that it is customary in Scotland to teach Scottish history up to 1707 and United Kingdom history thereafter. The content of history books depends much on whether battles were won or lost.

Sir Richard Body: Indeed. We in England should learn our English, United Kingdom and European history. I was taught European history half a century ago by somebody who inspired me to take an interest in the subject, and that interest has never left me. I get rather fed up with being denounced as anti-European, because I enjoy reading about Europe and European history and have been interested in the subject for a long time.
That is one of the reasons why I am so hostile to the idea of the European Community. European history shows over and again that such ventures always end in tears. There has been no exception to that.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the reference to European is not confined only to article 126 but appears on the face of the Command Paper? We are debating the treaty on European union. Is that the rich man's club of 12 or does it take in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania and even Russia?

Sir Richard Body: Indeed. The right hon. Gentleman—my right hon. Friend, if I may so describe him—is right and I endorse his comments wholeheartedly. The European dimension will exclude matters of geography, history or anything to do with, for example, Bohemia, which was mentioned earlier, or Russia. Russia is part of Europe. I believe that Tschaikovsky was European. Chekhov's plays and Tolstoy's novels are European. The treaty provides for education in an European dimension, but I wonder whether literature will include Tolstoy or only those authors who came from one part of Europe—that covered by the EC.

Mr. Cryer: And given EC subsidies.

Sir Richard Body: Indeed.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: We are discussing the nonsense of describing the EC as Europe as if the rest of Europe did not exist. What shall we call this ridiculous Community when Turkey is included, 98 per cent. of which is in Asia?

Sir Richard Body: Turkey has long had an application to join the European Community, and some years ago I went to Ankara and heard their enthusiasm to join. I pointed out one or two difficulties that they might encounter, but I have since discovered that Turkey is very unlikely to be admitted, and for one very good reason of which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) will be aware, that Germany is almost certain to veto it because—I must not speak too harshly of the Germans—they are reluctant to


have any more Turks coming into their country, and perhaps they may be right to be reluctant, given the troubles in eastern Germany.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend touched on the issue of distance education, but I do not think that he gave it as much attention as it perhaps merits. In one of our earlier debates here, one of our hon. Friends talked about satellite broadcasts of a programme called "Red Hot Danish Love". I understand that, to a certain extent, it was educational—

The Chairman: Order. That does not come under this article.

Sir Richard Body: I am disappointed, Mr. Morris. I thought that we might hear more about this "Red Hot Danish … "—I forget the last word. I implore my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster to close her ears. Perhaps we should not go along that road. I think I ought to get back—

The Chairman: Order. I have some difficulty in working out where the hon. Gentleman is going. Will he address either of the two particular articles that we have before us, neither of which has anything to do with enlargement or any of the other areas that he has drifted into?

Sir Richard Body: I am very anxious to get back to the amendment that has been moved by the hon. Member for Stretford, because his speech was riddled with fallacies. In particular, he and his party should reconsider their attitude of support for Community-funded vocational training.
It is common knowledge that Mr. Gonzalez, the Prime Minister of Spain, has insisted on large sums by way of cohesion money. He threatened to veto the Maastricht treaty unless the money was advanced to Spain. This heading will, in my view, enable large sums of money to go to Spain, and it will be necessary—because Spain, and Portugal, I will allege, despite what the hon. Gentleman said, Italy and Greece, are all far behind us when it comes to vocational training. This article will enable money to be diverted from our resources to southern Europe. It is inevitable because, if we are to have fair competition throughout western Europe in the single market, we must have systems of vocational training that are more or less in line, and at present they are not. No one can say that they are in line at the moment.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend is talking about vocational training, but he knows that among the amendments we are also discussing education, and he will be aware that, when article 126 says that
Community action shall be aimed at … developing exchanges of information and experience on issues common to the education system of the Member States",
it means people visiting each other, going backwards and forwards; money; Europe; slush fund. It could be very seductive, and it could be abused.
I would be very interested to hear my hon. Friend's views as to whether this is an appropriate use of European taxpayers' money, how it could and should be used and what constraints and controls he would put on it.

Sir Richard Body: I am sure that it will be abused. Indeed, the Court of Auditors has made it plain year after year that national Governments were ineffective in policing how Community money is spent in their own

countries. I shall not mention the common agricultural policy because I should be ruled out of order but £5,000 million has gone astray. Our Government have been criticised by the Court of Auditors, although I am sure they behave much better than some other Governments in spending that money. There is no encouragement for Governments to ensure that Community money is properly, effectively and honestly spent.

Mr. Bill Walker: Article 126 states that Community action shall be aimed at
encouraging the development of youth exchanges".
Few of us would disagree with that, but what is meant by
exchanges of socio-educational instructors"?
Would my hon. Friend care to comment?

Sir Richard Body: That merely confirms what I said earlier—a poet such as my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) could not have drafted a single sentence of the treaty.
Socio-economic policies—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The words are "socio-educational".

Sir Richard Body: I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster has spotted that. As ever, she is taking an acute interest in the subject and perhaps she will contribute to the debate later if she is lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Morris.
I was trying to give a warning, although it is perhaps not for me to do so.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: You have not said what they are—

Sir Richard Body: I was diverted. Mr. Morris, you will—

The Chairman: Order. The Chair is having great difficulty hearing the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), who appears to be having a conversation with the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman). Will he please deal with one of the two articles so that I can follow exactly what he is saying?

Sir Richard Body: Indeed I shall, but my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster is always tempting me. I shall seek to avoid her blandishments and raise my voice to speak directly to you, Mr. Morris, as I know I should. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I step back a little from her.

Mrs. Gorman: Before my hon. Friend leaves the issue of training and the use of slush funds, I should be interested to hear his comments on the attitude revealed in article 57 and amendment No. 199. The article is sinister because it refers to the laying down of
directives for the co-ordination … by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States
in relation to the activities of self-employed persons. It is sinister because the essence of many forms of self-employment is that people can drift into them, especially when they have lost other work. If there are to be directives, laws and regulations—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady's point is relevant. She has asked a question and perhaps she will now allow the hon. Member for Holland with Boston to answer.

Sir Richard Body: I agree wholeheartedly with the point of my hon. Friend's intervention. I was self-employed before I came to the House—many of us were. A self-employed person should be sufficiently endowed to be able to decide for himself or herself what type of vocational training is suitable. It is amazing that the European Community or those who drafted the treaty should go so far as to suggest that the self-employed should take part in such schemes—it should be entirely a matter for them.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend accept that article 57 does not offer opportunities for everyone? The second sentence of paragraph 2 of article 57 refers to
training and conditions of access for natural persons.
My hon. Friend seems to have studied this matter carefully. As we know from last night, however, the Minister does not answer questions but simply reads prepared speeches. That is unfortunate, but perhaps my hon. Friend can help me. Bearing in mind the reference to "natural persons", can he tell me what unnatural persons are? Or perhaps some Opposition Member can enlighten us.
This is a very serious point. The Bill with which we are dealing is to become the law of the land. Training and access are to be provided for natural persons but not, apparently, for unnatural persons. What on earth is a natural person? May we have an assurance—

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must not keep asking the same question. He has asked what a natural person is. Perhaps he will allow his hon. Friend to respond.

Sir Richard Body: My hon. Friend is, of course, right. This just goes to show how difficult it is to translate these documents into some kind of English. At one time I did a little lecturing in company law. We used to talk about "persons". A person can be a corporate entity. For example, I believe that, in law, ICI is a person.

Sir Teddy Taylor: But a natural person?

Sir Richard Body: My hon. Friend and I are natural persons. I shall not point to anyone who might be described as anything other than a natural person; indeed, all of us here are natural persons. In law, ICI, Unilever, Shell and all other such organisations are persons, but not natural persons.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I have great respect for my hon. Friend, who is one of the wisest people in the House, but I have to point out that he is stating what he thinks the position to be. Is there a definition anywhere? Constituents of mine will probably have to obey these laws. When it comes to training and access, I shall have to ask, "Are you a natural person?" My hon. Friend says that he thinks that he and I are natural persons. Where is the definition? This is not fun; it is a serious matter. All those who say that this Bill should be rushed through should realise that what it contains would become the law of the land. I demand that before we leave this matter we be told, by my hon. Friend or by somebody else, what the blazes a natural person is.

Sir Richard Body: My hon. Friend should not be quite so naive as to believe that the people who drafted this treaty, as well as those who will put it into effect, have very much interest in the people of Southend. The treaty

contains many examples of the way in which it will be very difficult for ordinary people, particularly those who are self-employed, to understand the laws that govern their lives, disobedience of which may result in punishment.

Mr. Cash: Perhaps tucked away in this convoluted treaty is a reference to a Euro-person. In the light of previous debates, I believe that we are moving rapidly to the notion of a European culture in which a person will be seen as natural in the European context. This is very disturbing. Does my hon. Friend know of a recent conference in Madrid that was partially funded by the European Commission? We are told that at that conference a certain Dr. Lenarduzzi of the Commission said that the Commission had been seeking to influence education—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows his way round the treaty better than most hon. Members. I am finding it difficult to relate his remarks to article 126 or 127. Or can it be that, as the hon. Gentleman has just appeared in the Chamber, he has lost track of where we are?

Mr. Cash: I had just reached the point about education policy and training. Dr. Lenarduzzi said that for a very long time the Commission had sought to influence education policy, especially through selective financial support. He admitted that under the treaty of Rome there was no remit to do this, and that therefore these provisions were being used to legitimise something that was known to be not within the vires of the existing treaty.

Sir Richard Body: I did touch upon what that gentleman said, because he is a Commissioner and he was speaking about the powers of the Commission as at present and how he sought to extend them. Reading the extracts from the speech that I have seen, he seemed to revel in the prospect of the enhanced powers that he would have as a Commissioner in deciding matters of education and vocational training.
This illustrates again, and very vividly, that as Commissioner he will be in charge, and he sees more power going to him. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster, as we all know, is an intelligent European and has credentials in this field. But she feels some dismay that this Commissioner was boasting—I do not think that that is an unfair word—that he would have so much more power.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: There was a reference to ultra vires persons; I was saying that these are intra vires persons, since legal language is being used.

Sir Richard Body: My hon. Friend shares with me the distinction, although I am not sure that it is a distinction, of having both been a barrister and a farmer. I know that she is well aware of the law on this subject. The Commissioner in question was hinting that he, as Commissioner for education, was exceeding his powers and therefore acting ultra vires, to use my hon. Friend's expression, when in future they will be intra vires and he will have the power to do things that he cannot do at the moment.
That is why some of us feel very concerned about this article, and indeed other articles, and why we believe that the people of this country should be alerted to how powers


are moving away from here to Brussels, to be exercised by someone who boasts as does the Commissioner whose name I fear that I cannot pronounce.

Mr. Bill Walker: I am sorry to trouble my hon. Friend again, but does he really think that the socio-educational instructor is a natural person? He can be a schoolteacher or a youth leader, but, whoever he is, do we really need a treaty in law to define what he is? If we intend to encourage the movement of people, can we not do so on a basis that makes good sense, and in good English?

Sir Richard Body: Indeed, my hon. Friend is right, and I endorse those views entirely. To some extent there may be a need for international co-operation in matters of education and, if there is, I would think that the Council of Europe was well equipped to do what is necessary. Indeed, it would be able to speak for virtually all Europe, other than parts of what was the Soviet Union. As I understand it—you will correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Morris, as a former member of the Council of Europe—it already has a cultural and educational dimension.

Mr. Beggs: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the excellent educational arrangements that we have in Northern Ireland. We respect the rights of those who wish to send their children to church schools, we have an excellent state system, grammar and secondary schools, and we have an integrated system. If this treaty is to proceed headlong, is there a risk that there will not be recognition of the rights of those who wish to make choices in Northern Ireland? In one section of article 126 we see that Community action shall be aimed at
promoting co-operation between educational establishments".
But then, further down, it also says that the Council, 
acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt recommendations.
Is it conceivable that it might ultimately be said that in Northern Ireland there should be only integrated education? Will we be directed ultimately from Brussels as to what is best for our young people?

Sir Richard Body: That is how I understand it. I wonder what my hon. Friend the Secretary of State will say in response. The matter is one of many to which we should have a response. Northern Ireland has high standards. It is the part of the United Kingdom which has more university places per head of population.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Because of the grammar schools.

Sir Richard Body: I am not sure about that. Lincolnshire has kept grammar schools, but it does not yet have a university. We hope to have one. I must not digress to talk about a university in Lincolnshire except to say that we hope to have one by the turn of the century, subject to what the Minister of State says about it. I do not think that there is a causal relationship.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I was not suggesting a causal relationship between grammar schools and a local university. I was suggesting a causal relationship between the excellence which a grammar school education gives and the capacity of its students to get to university. It does not need to be in Lincoln; it could be in Lancaster, where we have an exceptionally good grammar school.

The Chairman: Clearly, it is not in Brussels and is not relevant to the article, interesting though it is.

Sir Richard Body: I am sorely tempted to describe my visit to Lancaster university, but I will not. There should be concern in Northern Ireland about the Commissioners having the power to propose education schemes, as, indeed, in Scotland where there is and has been for generations a much higher standard than has prevailed in most of England.
Under the article, it is plain that the Commissioners will have the power to propose education schemes to include Northern Ireland. Such schemes would be to the detriment of Northern Ireland at present. At the Council of Ministers, if we have United Kingdom representatives who wish to object to that, I hope that they will.
The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) may agree that representatives from the United Kingdom who are attending the Council of Ministers may not always have the interests of the United Kingdom uppermost in their minds. One can be sure that the interests of Northern Ireland might have to be lowered in preference to the interests of some other parts of the United Kingdom or the United Kingdom as a whole. Certainly, we should be concerned that the Commissioners may propose education schemes which could include Northern Ireland. I hope that my hon. Friend the Secretary of State will deal with that point categorically.
Under this article, the Commission will have the power to allocate money or propose the allocation of money by way of incentives to a national Government to adopt schemes which the Commissioners have introduced. That is a dangerous practice. The danger is heightened by the fact that a majority will vote on the issue. When it comes to majority voting, my hon. Friend will agree that Northern Ireland will not have a good chance. As someone with Ulster blood in his veins, I regret that.
The hon. Member for Stretford was making a grave mistake on behalf of his party. I hope that the Back Benchers behind him will see the danger in his argument that vocational training schemes should be devised in Brussels. If vocational training schemes are devised in Brussels, we can be sure that the amount of money available will be limited.
If the amount of money available is to be parcelled up equally, those who represent Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece will insist on more money than the northern European countries. They will say, "It is not fair. We are behind northern Europe in vocational training so we cannot compete fairly in the single market." One can hear the Spaniards saying, "We already have 10 per cent. out of work. We shall have even more if we have to face competition from northern Europe. We must have vocational training as good as that which pertains in northern Europe."

Mr. Molyneaux: I apologise for intervening a second time in the hon. Gentleman's admirable speech. Does he agree that it will be a question not of bringing southern European countries up to our standards but of levelling us down to a common lower standard?

Sir Richard Body: My right hon. Friend has almost plucked the words from my mouth. I was going on to say


that. The amount of money will be limited. We cannot assume that large sums of money will be available for vocational training. The budget will be limited.
If the European Commission says, to use that tired phrase, that there must be a level playing field and that vocational training schemes must be more or less the same throughout the Community, we can be sure that standards in southern Europe and southern Ireland will have to be raised. If the budget is limited, less money will be available for comparable schemes in northern Europe. Therefore, we shall be placed at a disadvantage. That is crucial if we are to seek, as we should, to get rid of the wretched horror of mass unemployment. I see nothing but dangers ahead.
In the main wages are lower in southern Europe. People can afford to accept lower wages because heating, clothing and other costs tend to be lower than in northern Europe.

Mrs. Gorman: Will my hon. Friend give us his views on the fact that, under articles 126 and 127—those which are covered by the amendments that we are discussing tonight—the Commission's proposals will be subject to qualified majority voting? Therefore, the standards which apply in other parts of Europe, which may well be much lower than the fine quality education standards that we have described in our own territories—Scotland, Ireland and many parts of Wales and England—may supersede our standards. The decision will be taken by majority voting. We shall be only one twelfth of the voting body.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already given us his views on majority voting, so I am sure that he will not be tempted down that route.

Sir Richard Body: I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to deal with the point in his reply. It is important. With all due respect, my experience has been—I hope that he will not contradict me; I shall be sorry if he does—that Ministers do not always reply to some of the points that are made in the debate. I hope that they will deal with the matter. After all, majority voting is a serious matter. It means that, if one country or perhaps two or three countries stand out with interests different from those of others, their interests would be overridden. I can see precisely that happening on vocational training.
Anyone who has attended a meeting of the Council of Ministers in recent years will confirm that the Spanish Minister in particular is for ever being extremely difficult about any concessions that might be in our interest but which might conflict with those of southern Europe. He needs only to obtain the support of France and possibly another country to win the day and override our interests.

Mr. Marlow: As my hon. Friend has studied the matter carefully, I expect that he will have read the article in Education on 18 September by Mr. Ken Hopkins, a former chief education officer in Mid Glamorgan, in which he mentions a previously not well-recognised concession made by our Prime Minister saying:
Mr. Major's apparently minor concession at Maastricht thus has significant implications for the education service in the UK. The previous heavy vocational emphasis to the Commission's programmes will be lifted.
Whereas the only impact that the bureaucrats had on our education system in the United Kingdon was through vocational training, it now extends throughout the whole realm of education.

Sir Richard Body: Yes, I have had the advantage of seeing that article.

The Chairman: Order. This is not the appropriate time for the hon. Gentleman to read the article. He should have come prepared.

Sir Richard Body: I am not seeking to read it: I would not do so. That article was not written casually. It is in the journal for education and was written by someone with considerable experience of education and education policy. The article expresses grave concern about article 57 because the author believes that our educational system is satisfactory. Although that may not altogether please Opposition Members, I hope that at least on the Conservative side of the House that view will be supported.
He queries whether we can maintain that standard and whether we would have to change. In the article he says that if we are to change our education system we should decide to make the change. We should not surrender our interests and allow our education standards to be determined through qualified voting procedures by people whose interests might not be the same as ours. That is a powerful argument and I commend it to every hon. Member.

Mr. Cran: What a wonderful speech my hon. Friend has made, which is why I have not intervened so far. Could he turn his mind to article 126, which seeks the academic recognition of diplomas and periods of study throughout Europe? Would he like to comment on the fact that many academics and graduates at my local university in Hull are extremely worried about that? They take the view that the academic standards achieved in British universities—especially at the university of Hull—are higher than those achieved at some universities in other parts of Europe. Does he agree that that concern is real and if so, why is it not recognised by the Government?

Sir Richard Body: Hull university has a distinguished professor of government. I sit on an editorial board beside him and can vouch for the good advice that he always gives. He is well known to many Members of the House, has written several books about the House and dearly loves it, but—if he does not mind me saying so—he has strong views about the way that it seeks to be cavalier about the way that its powers are slipping away.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Surely the hon. Gentleman recognises that the Maastricht treaty gives educational advantages to some member countries of the European Community? That is the whole purpose of the Maastricht agreement. Is he aware that the new Government which has just been formed in the Republic of Ireland—a coalition of Fianna Fail and the Irish Labour party—issued a joint policy statement, before the Government was confirmed by the southern Irish Parliament?
That statement announced that, for the first time, grants would be available to provide free third-level university education. The grants would be financed by the cohesion fund that the Maastricht agreement would create, and paid for by British and German taxpayers. That is how the parties presented their Government policy.

Sir Richard Body: Indeed, that must follow. After all, Ireland receives from Community funds six times more


than she puts in. Ireland is a major beneficiary—as, allegedly, are her farmers. I must not digress, but we know only too well how the money has disappeared; it is not really enhancing the farmers' standard of living. It is a great pity that they do not understand what is going on.

Sir Teddy Taylor: It is not just the Government of the Republic of Ireland who are aware of the big difference and the approaching changes; the Commission are aware of that too. Perhaps my hon. Friend can find a way of letting the Government read the Commission's recently published report on Lingua, which was featured in Education magazine on 28 August 1992. The report revealed that, during that year, 200 teachers in the United Kingdom had undergone in-service training in a foreign language, compared with 71 in Spain, 66 in France and 48 in Germany.
Even in regard to the number of students going on the foreign exchanges that the treaty will formalise, encourage and finance, Britain's record was about four times higher than that of France. If money is to be provided to equalise the position, Britain will lose out: it will pay more, while gaining no advantage for its people. Less money will be available to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the provision of necessary facilities.

The Chairman: Order. Let me remind the House that, as we are still to debate the cohesion funds, it would not be appropriate for the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) to develop that argument now. Let us return to the two articles covered by the amendment—as I know the hon. Gentleman was about to do.

Sir Richard Body: I believe that the information given by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) is germane. It relates to how the article that we are discussing could affect our standards. It asserts that our standards are, on the whole, very good, and quotes statistics to establish that. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will endorse that, rather than adopting the line of the hon. Member for Stretford and allowing it to be said that our educational standards are lower than those generally prevailing on the continent.
What the hon. Member for Stretford said is likely to be mirrored again and again in southern Europe. I hope that the Committee is as grateful as I am for this warning of what will happen in Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece. The Commission will be bound to try to enforce similar standards for vocational training, and that will mean either that our standards will be lowered, or that the taxpayers of northern Europe—primarily those in Germany and the United Kingdom—will have to contribute much more than is currently envisaged.
If that does not happen, our employees will be put at a disadvantage. They will not have the standard of education that they have now. When the Opposition say that our standards are poor, they must realise that those standards will be worse if we go ahead and allow the Commission to lay down standards and impose a uniform pattern across western Europe.

Mr. Cran: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's answer on article 126. Will he address his mind, albeit temporarily, to article 57? He will be well aware of the facts and I do not ask him to read it, but I shall try to tell him succinctly that that extraordinary article requires the Council to issue directives on the mutual recognition of diplomas,

certificates and other evidence of formal qualification. Does he not agree that it is already Government policy that there are far too many directives coming out of Europe? Can he guess why the Government are asking for more directives, albeit on this subject? Do we not want fewer directives?

Sir Richard Body: I owe my hon. Friend an apology for not answering that question previously. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with it in his reply to the debate. We are gathering quite a catalogue of questions and I suspect that only a very few of them will be answered when the time comes.

Mr. Cryer: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that part of the spate of delegated legislation that the Government are producing is based on introducing statutory instruments to implement directives? Does he agree that 1992 saw an unprecedented number of statutory instruments, orders and regulations? There were more than 3,000—a number never before achieved by any Parliament or Government in history. As the hon. Member for Beverely (Mr. Cran) said, one wonders why the Government are going after a treaty that will produce still more directives.

Sir Richard Body: I once judged a country's degree of socialism, or the socialist instinct of its Government by the number of regulations upon its people as each one tells at least someone what they shall have or what they shall do. The hon. Member has raised a very strong point. We are deluged by statutory regulations and it is a matter of very great concern to the business community.
Large companies all have one or two people whose job it is to examine the regulations and ensure that the company is keeping the law, but they are a severe burden on small businesses. I can think of businesses in my constituency, and I am sure that every right hon. and hon. Member can say the same, that they are desperate about some of the legislation being produced. They almost always complain about secondary legislation; it is very seldom primary legislation.

Mrs. Gorman: Before my hon. Friend leaves the point about training in business and professions, will he turn to amendment No. 199, which deals with article 57? Paragraph 3 deals with training and qualifications and co-ordinating of the medical and pharmaceutical professions and the progressive abolition of restrictions between countries in those professions. I am sure that my hon. Friend has great knowledge of the subject. Does he agree that it is extremely dangerous for us to remove such separations, as we expect very high standards which are not necessarily followed throughout the market? Can he give us the benefit of his experience?

Sir Richard Body: That is true of several professions. The standards of veterinary training in Spain and Portugal are way below ours, although I regret to say that, because I am fond of Portugal. We founded the profession, and the standards set by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and other centres of learning here have been of the very highest. Those who wish to enter training for the profession need A grades at A-level. There are other such examples, and no doubt my hon. Friends can think of them.
There is no doubt that we will be disadvantaged if we agree to this article, which is bound to lower our professional standards.

Mr. Cran: I am sorry to be tiresome, but I should like to ask my hon. Friend to return to article 57. I do not want my hon. Friend to read it because he has a great deal else on his mind—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now attempting to read the article for the third time. He should do hon. Members the courtesy of recognising that they have followed the debate and they know what is in the article.

Mr. Cran: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I have not taken up much of the time of the Committee and I put it to you that I was going to present an entirely new aspect of article 57—

The Chairman: Order. It is of little relevance how often an hon. Member may have spoken. Some hon. Members who have spoken many times have spoken in order. Others who have spoken only once may have been out of order. On this occasion the hon. Gentleman is out of order.

Mr. Cran: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. The point that I was going to put to my hon. Friend was entirely different from the one that I put to him before. It relates to why doctors and dentists are being treated—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot just persist. He should know that it is not right to quote at length from the treaty. He should recognise that hon. Members have read it and know what is in it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—and they have followed the debate intensely. I call Sir Richard Body.

Mr. Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. It is a known fact that the Home Secretary has not read the treaty.

The Chairman: I call Sir Richard Body.

Mr. Bill Walker: On a different point of order, Mr. Morris. The treaty is not couched in the normal language of the Westminster Parliament of the United Kingdom. I suggest that there will inevitably be large parts of each article, therefore, that need explanation by Ministers. So far they have not been giving us explanations.

The Chairman: With the greatest respect, Ministers have not had the chance to respond to anything yet. The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) has been on his feet for the best part of two hours, so it is a little hard to chastise Ministers.

Sir Richard Body: I do not deny that I have been speaking for two hours. I began by taking the hon. Member for Stretford to task, and there have been some interventions to which I have sought to respond. That is only courteous.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman himself decides whether to give way to interventions, but they are all part of his speech and count towards the time of that speech.

Sir Richard Body: Correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Morris, but I believe that one of the amendments alludes to article 57. It is that to which my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) was trying to refer. It concerns the medical and pharmaceutical professions. Why should not there be differences between this country's view of those professions and that of other countries in the European Community?
The article seeks to harmonise the education, training and qualifications of those two professions in such a way that anyone in them can freely cross frontiers and, having done so, can practise. I accept that there are many advantages to that, and none of those who share my views about the Maastricht treaty would suggest that professional people should not cross frontiers. But we are concerned about the education, training and qualifications of those who will cross frontiers, because we want the highest standards to prevail in those professions.

Mr. Cash: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is possible, under arrangements for the mutual recognition of diplomas and degrees, for a first-class degree from one of the great British universities such as Oxford or Cambridge to be equated with a similar first-class degree from some other place that clearly does not carry the same quality, as a result of which there will be complete confusion as to the value of first and second-class degrees?

Sir Richard Body: Yes, and we must ask whether those professions and the patients who seek advice from them will be at a disadvantage.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Hon. Members are aware of my interest in the health service and its quality. My hon. Friend alluded to the interests of patients. If we are forced to accept what I would describe as a substandard medical qualification because of the Maastricht treaty, which extends vocational training and education to the Commission and the European Community, the British Parliament, by proceeding with the Bill, could be putting the safety of British patients in jeopardy. We should be deeply concerned about that.

Sir Richard Body: My hon. Friend speaks with authority on that subject and I cannot aspire to his understanding of the two professions in question. But as I said, I know something about the veterinary profession, and in that the standards in some southern European countries, particularly Spain, are manifestly lower than they are in Britain. I am in favour of free transfer, but only if we can decide the appropriate standards for our own country.

Mr. Cran: I assure my hon. Friend that I am not besotted with article 57. Is he aware that there is dubiety about whether an English doctor who practises in another country in Europe need speak the local language and, similarly, about whether a doctor from a European country need speak English? That reinforces my hon. Friend's argument that health care will go down rather than up.

Sir Richard Body: That is self-evident, and I hope that when the Minister replies he will deal with that and the catalogue of other questions that have been raised. I beg him to treat this group of amendments more seriously than Ministers treated previous groups and to deal with every point that we have raised. It has been said that we do not


need a referendum because the matter will be fully debated and all the points at issue will be answered. If the questions that we raise are not answered that will weaken the Government's case for denying a referendum. It is in the interests of the Government to deal adequately with all these matters in a language that the people can understand. That cannot be said of the treaty because we have already heard many examples of how it—

It being Ten o'clock. THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee to report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Commercial Court

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

10 pm

Mr. Richard Ottaway: This is very much a case of third time lucky. After the fracas on the day before the start of the Christmas recess, I was prevented by Opposition Members from making this speech.
In drawing attention to delays in the commercial court, I declare an interest as a solicitor and a director of companies which, from time to time, have had reason to use the commercial court. One of the main reasons why hon. Members should not be deterred from holding outside interests is that they are able to bring to the attention of the House problems that arise in those outside interests and which the Government can remedy.
Britain is a trading nation, and depends on international trade and commerce for its existence. At its heart is the City of London and, as I am a Member for a London seat and many of my constituents work in the City, its success is paramount to my constituency's interest. The City of London has a pre-eminent role in global trade and, inevitably, there are disputes in such trade. The commercial court provides a disputes resolution service for the international trading and commercial community, and to date it has been most successful.
The commercial court enjoys a worldwide reputation for providing the service for which it was instituted nearly 100 years ago in 1985. It was set up to overcome delays in the High Court—which, ironically, is now its chief fault. In well over half the cases that appear before the court, all the parties are foreign enterprises, and in more than three quarters of the cases, at least one of the parties comes from abroad. One of the chief results of that success is that the court is a substantial earner of foreign exchange in the form of invisible earnings. Those earnings arise not merely from those directly using the court, because the existence of the court in London means that the big international law firms in the City have an advantage over their overseas competitors and can offer as part of their services their familiarity with the practices of a court of world renown.
Bearing in mind the huge costs of commercial legal advice and advocacy, it would not be an exaggeration to measure the financial benefits of the court in hundreds of millions of pounds per annum. According to the Central Statistical Office balance of payments year book, foreign legal earnings are £425 million per year. The success of the commercial court over recent years is demonstrated by the fact that the court is so popular that the number of judges on commercial cases has increased from one 30 years ago to the present six. It is a credit to this Government and the Lord Chancellor's Department to have nurtured and promoted this state-owned industry. However, a few problems have recently occurred. Due to the international nature of the court, it has developed a system of providing fixed hearing dates. One of the principal reasons for this is that a system of fixed dates gives foreign litigants and witnesses fair notice of when they will be required to travel to this country.
Another important reason is that all those concerned with commercial affairs much prefer to know in advance when their disputes and differences will be resolved. In


order to provide fixed hearing dates that are reasonably reliable, the court must have a constant minimum number of commercial court judges.
Given that starting point, the court can construct a list of court cases and dates. It is the aim of the commercial court that, in principle, cases should be heard at the earliest date on which the parties can be ready. That is in line with the suggestion in the civil justice review, that cases should be listed and heard within 12 months from the time of giving a trial date. That aim is also, most importantly, in line with what commercial enterprises want and need from a commercial disputes resolution service. In this field, justice delayed is likely to be justice denied or at least diminished.
Within an establishment of six judges sitting full time it was possible in the past to come close to achieving that aim. However, the situation has deteriorated recently. At the beginning of the last legal term, only five judges were available, and for reasons which are not surprising in a commercial court, four of those judges had become tied up in cases which had overrun or been brought on expeditiously. So we have a situation in which one judge is doing the work of six. He is the judge in charge of the commercial list, who is unable to undertake any trial of any length, as he has to be available to deal with the administrative matters and paper applications, which run to dozens every week.
The upshot of that is that the commercial court faces an immediate and serious problem. Had the full complement of judges been available, the difficulties would largely have been overcome, but on 22 October 1992, the question of judicial resources was raised in the other place when Lord Byron specifically raised the problems faced by the commercial court because of the lack of a full complement of commercial judges.
The Lord Chancellor, dealing with this point, observed that it was not immediately possible to replace those promoted to the Court of Appeal, but that he hoped to be in a position to appoint replacements and that the matter was temporary. A similar response was given to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. John M. Taylor), when, in answer to an oral question on 30 November, he said that a further appointment would shortly be made and implied that that would solve the problem. He gave that response in absolute good faith and I assure him that I am not suggesting otherwise.
Unfortunately, since then it has transpired that the problem is proving more than temporary. The complement of commercial judges is, on information I have available, likely to be affected indefinitely. As my hon. Friend is aware, three fresh appointments have been made in recent weeks, but I am informed that, because of shortage of judges in other parts of the Queen's bench division, two of these new judges can be made available next term for the use of the commercial court, and one is one of the five already struggling.
If I may anticipate my hon. Friend's reply, he may suggest that this is a matter for the Lord Chief Justice, but the Lord Chief Justice has been saying for many years that he does not have enough judges. My hon. Friend may say that this is a matter for the working party recently set up, but I put it to him that it has already been submitted to the working party that the High Court requires more judges.
In other words, the shortage of judges in the commercial court will continue, and the difficulties will multiply every day. They cannot be solved next term, because the court will not have the judges available to do next term's list, let alone grapple with this term's problems of the emergency problems that next term itself may bring.
The commercial court users committee met last month. It is a committee not merely of lawyers with a vested interest in the success of the court but predominantly of major City and international organisations that reflect the cause of global trade. Its spokesman in discussions with the Government is Peter Tudball, the chairman of the Baltic Exchange, who has done much to raise the issue, not to be difficult but to protect London as a centre of world trade. I wholeheartedly support that attitude.
On being advised of the present position, the committee considered the matter so serious that an immediate approach should be made to Government. Its aim was to ensure that all concerned were made aware that it is not only the lawyers of the court who believe that a properly manned commercial court is essential for the continued well-being of many City institutions, which provide international service and thus enable Britain to earn its living in the world. It believes that a total of four new judges are required.
The situation is now such that the judge of the commercial court list recently wrote:
To my mind, the Commercial Court is no longer merely in a state of crisis. It is about to reach the point when it would be dishonest to continue to pretend that it is capable of providing the service for which it was instituted.
This autumn, Lord Donaldson, a former Master of the Rolls, said:
The situation has gone from crisis to catastrophe.
If that is true, it is a very serious matter indeed. In drawing it to the attention of the House, I have sought to show that the problem can be resolved.
It is not clear to me how we have reached this position. I am aware that the Government must exercise restraint in public expenditure, but there is a solution for the commercial court. The sums of money in dispute in the commercial court are huge and run to millions of pounds, but the writ fees are insignificant. If the writ fee were raised to £1,000 for every case filed in the commercial court, it would be a drop in the ocean to the users of the court, but it is estimated that it would raise £2 million per annum.
That would make the court largely self-financing, would allow for the appointment of even more judges, and might leave a small profit for the Treasury. Perhaps that will help the Treasury to review the situation and allocate more funds directly for more judges in the commercial court.
On that happy note of suggesting a small profit for the Treasury, I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend's proposals for sorting out this situation. I emphasise my belief that this institution is a credit to the Government, and that its problems are capable of resolution.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I acknowledge the concern that has been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) about delays in dealing with the work of the commercial court, and I congratulate him on securing this Adjournment debate.
I should first explain that the commercial court is part of the Queen's bench division of the High Court and came into existence in 1895 to provide a tribunal with greater familiarity with the subject matter of commercial and mercantile disputes and procedures to enable those disputes to be justly determined expeditiously, effectively and without undue formality.
Those remain the objectives of the court, which operates a system of fixed rather than floating lists because its users, many of whom carry on their businesses in foreign countries, are given fair notice of when they will be required to travel to London, so they know in advance when their disputes and differences will be resolved.
Under section 6 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, the Lord Chancellor nominates the High Court judges who may then be deployed to sit in the commercial court. Apart from the commercial judge, who is in charge of the list and who sits full-time in the commercial court, the others who sit there are drawn according to need and availability from the pool of judges nominated by the Lord Chancellor.
The work load of the commercial court has shown a steady increase, year by year, since 1988. The number of judicial sittings has also increased proportionately, from 936 days in the year to July 1988 to 1,256 in the year to July 1992. The commercial court had reached a relatively stable position and had been able to allocate trial times for parties who were ready for trial. Recent promotions to the Court of Appeal have, however, had a temporary effect on waiting times.
At the beginning of the last legal term, only five judges were made available from the pool of nominated judges to sit in the commercial court, although lists were planned on the basis that six judges would be available to sit. Of those five judges, two were tied up on cases which had considerably overrun their time estimates, as my hon. Friend indicated. Two others were involved in cases which were expedited—that is, ordered to take priority over other cases in the list. There was therefore only one other judge available to take the cases at that time. All five were, however, transacting the business of the commercial court.
It was not possible to secure immediate replacements for judges who had been promoted to the Court of Appeal. The pool of suitable practitioners is relatively small, and full-time appointments of judges suitable for nomination to the commercial court bench are difficult to arrange, especially as appointees may have other commitments to be met. I am pleased to say that further nominations have now been made, and the Lord Chief Justice has additional judges available for him to deploy in that court.
On 30 November, the Lord Chancellor nominated a further judge, Mr. Justice Tuckey. On 9 December, he further nominated Mr. Justice Colman, who was appointed to the High Court on that day. On 11 January, Mr. Justice Clarke, another new appointee to the High Court bench, was also nominated, to bring the number of nominees in the pool up to 10 who, together with the commercial judge, thus providing 11 judges who are currently able to sit in the commercial court, although I understand that there has had to be some replanning of lists for the current term because of last term's difficulties.
Of course, some of the judges who sit in the commercial court have other commitments. Two of the High Court judges who sit in the commercial court are presiding judges on circuits, and visit those circuits for part of the legal term. Others are also deployed to sit in other parts of the

Queen's bench division, the Court of Appeal, the divisional court and the Crown court from time to time by the Lord Chief Justice.
The day-to-day deployment of judges in the Queen's bench division is a matter for the Lord Chief Justice. While it is important that fixtures arranged in the commercial court several months in advance should be kept, the Lord Chief Justice, in deciding on where judges are deployed must, of course, give due weight to the needs of the Crown court, the Queen's bench division, the Court of Appeal, criminal division, and the divisional court. The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice consider a reduction of waiting times in these latter two courts to be of the utmost importance at this present time. At any one time, therefore, there will be difficult questions of priority to be decided in the allocation of judges. This is an important point and one which is accepted by the commercial court judge.
As the Lord Chancellor explained in the other place on 22 October 1992, in response to an unstarred question from Lord Irvine of Lairg, there is some difference between the waiting times in the various parts of the High Court, and this is true within the Queen's bench division itself. The most recent figures I have seen illustrate these differences. In the warned list, the statistics show that waiting times have halved since June 1991, from two months to one month, while the waiting times for fixtures and after fixtures fell from 15 months to eight months and from six months to three months respectively. There have been improvements in waiting times in other areas of business.
The overall picture is a very complex one, and there is no doubt, therefore, that the situation requires a thorough review. It is one thing to believe that, because of delay, more judges seem to be required; it is quite another to determine how many and on what basis.
It has been said that there is a need to plan for more judges overall, so as to ensure that enough are available in all jurisdictions, including the commercial court. That there should be sufficient High Court judges to hear the most serious, sensitive or complex cases is a natural public concern, and in recognition of this concern, the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice have asked a group of senior judges and officials to provide advice on the work, deployment and numbers of High Court judges. The group is chaired by Lord Justice Kennedy, and its other judicial members are the Deputy Chief Justice, Lord Justice Watkins, Lord Justice McCowan, Lord Justice Scott, Lord Justice Rose, Mrs. Justice Bracewell, Mr. Justice Johnson and Mr. Justice Macpherson.
The group's first meeting was on 5 October 1992. It has met several times since then. The chairman has commissioned material relating to the work, deployment and numbers of High Court judges from members of the group and from other members of the judiciary who have responsibility for, or knowledge of, specialist High Court jurisdictions.
The advice which the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice are seeking would cover a number of areas. The first area is what work, civil and criminal, it is appropriate for High Court judges to undertake and merits their expertise and what work can be left to others. The second is how High Court judges should be deployed to dispose of that business, having regard to the relative needs of the circuits and, in London, of the Court of Appeal, the three divisions of the High Court, the


employment appeals tribunal and the other commitments they must meet. The third and related area is the system for deploying High Court judges, including the information needed to allocate appropriate business to them and to deploy them flexibly within the courts' structure to carry the work out.
It is hoped that the advice will help to address the number of High Court judges not simply in terms of needing more, or indeed fewer, to meet immediate demands, but in developing a more systematic method of determining those numbers.
The commercial court judge has contributed his views and those of the users of the court—to which my hon. Friend referred—to the group of judges and officials, and these views will be taken fully into account. It is hoped that the advice will be received soon, but until it is received it would be premature to speculate or reach conclusions about how many High Court judges are needed adequately to discharge the work load falling on them in all or any of the jurisdictions in which they sit, or how best they should be deployed to meet it.
I think it pertinent to mention finally that, since the Lord Chancellor came to office in October 1987, the number of High Court judges increased from 79 to 85 in June 1992. Although that number has fallen very recently to 83 because of promotions and retirements, steps are being taken to bring the number back to 85 as soon as is practicable.
It has been suggested that fees should be increased to pay for more judges in the commercial court. I am grateful for this suggestion. Supreme Court fees are currently subject to review, and I have offered to meet my hon. Friend to hear his views on that. The commercial court cannot, however, be seen in isolation from the rest of the court service and there could be no guarantee that increased fee income would translate directly into increased "judge power" in the commercial court.
It has also been suggested that the problems of the commercial court might lead to a significant decrease in this country's invisible earnings. I find it improbable that a temporary reduction in the total number of judges available to sit in the commercial court will do any long-term harm to its excellent reputation.
I have been asked whether the advice of the group of senior judges and officials will be published. It is unclear yet whether the advice will be in a form which could be published. Parliamentary and Privy Council approval is required to increase the current statutory limit, so in the normal course of events, any changes which were proposed to be made as a result of the advice would come into the public domain.
I should add, however, that, even if an increase in High Court judge numbers were agreed, the need to seek such approval and the problems of disengaging candidates from their current practices would mean that some time would inevitably elapse before any appointments would become effective.
The list of judges, then, nominated to sit in the commercial court as at 11th January 1993 was as follows: Mr. Justice Sheen, Mr. Justice Hobhouse, Mr. Justice Saville, Mr. Justice Gatehouse, Mr. Justice Phillips, Mr. Justice Potter, Mr. Justice Waller, Mr. Justice Cresswell, Mr. Justice Tuckey, Mr. Justice Coleman and Mr. Justice Clarke.
Mr. Justice Sheen is the Admiralty judge and devotes about 20 per cent. of his time to the commercial court. Mr. Justice Waller and Mr. Justice Potter are also presiding judges on circuits.
I should like to thank the House for the opportunity to reply to the points raised by my hon. Friend and, once again, to congratulate him on securing this Adjournment debate on a very important subject, about which I know he cares very sincerely, and of which he has considerable knowledge.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six minutes past ten o'clock.